DE NALLADRU v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND — 1998 DIGILAW 643 (GUJ)

S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner - D. E. Nalladaru - was employee of respondent No. 3. He filed Special Civil Application No. 9075 of 1997 before this court with the grievance that his Provident Fund amount has not been paid to him. In fact the grievance of the petitioner in the aforesaid special civil application was that the amount of Provident Fund which was sought to be paid to him was less by Rs. 5455. 00. In the special civil application he prayed for direction to the respondents to prepare and submit the accounts of the amount of P. F. and to pay the amount with 18% interest to the petitioner. It has come on record that on 22-6-1988 respondents No. 1 and 2 have sent cheque for Rs. 61,624. 00 to the petitioner towards the amount of his Provident Fund, but curiously enough he refused to accept the same. That shows that the petitioner was a man of means, otherwise for the dispute of Rs. 5,455/ordinarily he should not have refused to accept payment of Rs. 61,634. 00. It is understandable if there was some dispute on the quantum of the amount of P. F. still, whatever amount paid has to be accepted under protest. But that course has not been adopted. The only inference which can be drawn from this conduct is that he was not in need of money. Be that as it may. ( 2 ) DURING the course of argument of the aforesaid special civil application, the counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 produced for perusal of the court that in the year 1992 after rechecking of the accounts the respondents had sent cheque for Rs. 67,079. 00 to the petitioner, but again he refused to accept that cheque. The writ petition was decided by this court on 28th January, 1998. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the direction of this court the amount of Rs. 67,079/has been paid to the petitioner which he received also. The claim of the petitioner for interest was specifically declined on the grounds given in the judgment. The writ petition was decided by this court on 28th January, 1998. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the direction of this court the amount of Rs. 67,079/has been paid to the petitioner which he received also. The claim of the petitioner for interest was specifically declined on the grounds given in the judgment. Despite the fact that this court has declined to grant the prayer made by the petitioner for interest in special civil application No. 9075/87, he filed special civil application No. 5543 of 1998 before this court and he prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to pay legitimate interest on the total amount of provident fund of Rs. 67,079. 00 from 24-5-1988 to 28-1-1998 as per current rate of interest as prescribed under the Provident Fund Rules. From this prayer I find that the amount of Rs. 67,079. 00 has been received by the petitioner on 29th January, 1998. If one compare this prayer made and the prayer made in the earlier Special Civil Application, it is clear that they are identical so far as the grant of interest on P. F. amount is concerned. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed M. C. A. No. 1403/98 for review of the order dated 28th January, 1998 passed by this court in special civil application No. 9075/97. Review is sought of that part of the aforesaid order which relates to refusal to grant the prayer for interest on the amount of provident fund in favour of the petitioner. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that while deciding special civil application No. 9075/97 this court was influenced by the fact that in the year 1992 also again respondents No. 1 and 2 had sent cheque of provident fund amount to the petitioner, which is factually incorrect. This observation was made in the court in the judgment only after seeing the documents. Still for the satisfaction of the petitioners counsel, as directed by this court, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 today have produced the very same papers showing that cheque for Rs. 67,079. 00 was sent to the petitioner in the year 1992, and the counsel for the petitioner has also been show the same. Thereafter she has not made any further submission. The Misc. 67,079. 00 was sent to the petitioner in the year 1992, and the counsel for the petitioner has also been show the same. Thereafter she has not made any further submission. The Misc. Civil Application is not only misconceived, but it is clearly an attempt to abuse the process of the court. This court is satisfied that respondents No. 1 and 2 have not delayed payment of the amount of P. F. to the petitioner, but petitioner himself is responsible for the same. In June 1988 an amount of Rs. 61,624. 00 was sent to the petitioner by cheque, which was not accepted by the petitioner. Again in the year 1992 cheque for Rs. 67,079. 00 was sent to the petitioner, which was also not accepted by the petitioner. Taking into consideration these facts this court declined to grant payment of interest on the said amount. Despite these facts, which are not in dispute, now this review application has been filed. This is nothing but only an attempt to get the amount of interest, which prayer was rejected by this court. The M. C. A. as well as the second petition being special civil application No. 5543 of 1998 are nothing but abuse of the process of the court, and they are dimissed. ( 5 ) OTHERWISE also this second special civil application deservaes to be dismissed on the ground that once this court has specifically declined the relief as prayed for in the first special civil application for the same relief, second special civil application is not maintainable. Though the principles of Civil Procedure Code are not strictly applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in my considered opinion the second petition is barred by principles of constructive resjudicata as well as by principles analogous to the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At one point of time I thought of appropriately dealing with the petitioner for his this attempt to abuse the process of the court. But taking into consideration the fact that he is a retired person and whatever he has done would have beeen under the advice of his advocate, I consider it to be a case not to take any harsh action against him. But taking into consideration the fact that he is a retired person and whatever he has done would have beeen under the advice of his advocate, I consider it to be a case not to take any harsh action against him. At the same time he cannot be made scot free for this serious attempt made by him of abusing the process of the court. However, the interest of justice would be met in case a nominal penalty is imposed on him by directing him to deposit Rs. 1,000/with the office of the Gujarat State Legal Aid Advice Board. The petitioner is directed to deposit this amount of Rs. 1000. 00 within two months from today. In view of the fact that the M. C. A. itself has no merits, civil application No. 7484 of 1998 deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) IN the result civil application No. 7484 of 1998, Misc. Civil Application No. 1403 of 1998 and Special C. A. No. 5543 of 1998 are dismissed. .