Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1494 (ALL)

Ram Awadh Singh v. State Public Services Tribunal

2005-08-11

JAGDISH BHALLA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT : JAGDISH BHALLA, RAJIV SHARMA, JJ. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. 2. This petition has been filed against the judgment and orders dated 2.5.1993 and 29.7.1993 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby the Respondents have refused the prayer of the Petitioner for computation of period during which he was out of employment for all service benefits and refused to treat the Petitioner in continuous service for the purposes of seniority, confirmation, fixation of pay scale etc. 3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 2.7.1973 in the department of fisheries. His services were terminated vide order dated 25.10.1976. He preferred a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal for redressal of his grievances, which was dismissed on 21.8.1981. Being aggrieved the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 677 of 1982 challenging the validity of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and the orders of termination of his services. The above writ petition was allowed and the order passed by Respondent No. 1 upholding the orders of termination of the Petitioner was quashed and the Petitioner was declared to be in continuous service with all service benefits, vide judgment and order dated 3rd March, 1987. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 went to Apex Court by filing a Civil Appeal No. 2105 of 1987. Their Lordships of the Apex Court disposed of said civil appeal on 21st August, 1990 on the following terms: (i) The Respondent shall go back to service and continue in employment until superannuation is due subject to normal service rules. He shall, however, not be entitled to the back wages for the period he was out of employment. (ii) To meet the situation in which the Respondent had been put out of employment we direct that he shall be awarded by way of costs of this appeal a sum of Rs. 7,500 (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only). (iii) It shall not be necessary for the return to service to take the approval of the State Public Service Commission. (iv) Though he shall not be entitled to back wages, he would be entitled to the credit of the period he was out of service for purposes of pension. 7,500 (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only). (iii) It shall not be necessary for the return to service to take the approval of the State Public Service Commission. (iv) Though he shall not be entitled to back wages, he would be entitled to the credit of the period he was out of service for purposes of pension. (v) In case the Respondent reports to duty he shall be taken into employment with effect from 1.10.1990. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly. 4. In compliance of the order of the Apex Court, the Petitioner reported for duty on 1.10.1990, but the Petitioner was placed in the starting pay scale of Rs. 1,400 of Junior Engineers. Thereupon the State Government of U.P. vide order dated 15th July, 1991 directed for re-employment of the Petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.1990 till the age of superannuation. In pursuance to the Government’s order, the Director of Fisheries passed an order dated 26.7.1991 to the same effect. The Petitioner again approached the Respondent No. 1 by filing another claim petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 26.7.1991. The Respondent No. 1 allowed the Petitioner’s claim petition partly, vide order dated 2.5.1993 by holding that the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service and not for re-employment, but rejected the Petitioner’s claim for computation of period during which he was out of employment for the purposes of seniority, fixation of pay, confirmation etc. Aggrieved by this rejection order, the Petitioner has come to this Court. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, it has been stated that the Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer purely on ad hoc basis and in compliance of the order of the Apex Court the Petitioner has been taken back in service by way of re-employment and his name has been placed below the regularly appointed Junior Engineers in the department, after computing the period he remained in service w.e.f. 2.7.1973 till the date of termination, i.e., 25.10.1976. Thereafter in pursuance of the order dated 22.5.1993 of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, the Petitioner has been re-instated in service. 6. The learned standing counsel has pointed out that several judgments, see State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1249 : (1982) 2 SCC 463 , Bhavnagar University Vs. Thereafter in pursuance of the order dated 22.5.1993 of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, the Petitioner has been re-instated in service. 6. The learned standing counsel has pointed out that several judgments, see State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1249 : (1982) 2 SCC 463 , Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Others, AIR 2003 SC 511 : (2003) 2 SCC 111 , Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani, AIR 2003 SC 2418 : (2003) 6 SCC 595 , Central Bank of India Vs. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi and Another, AIR 2003 SC 3028 : (2003) 6 SCC 573 , Union of India (UOI) Vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda and Another, AIR 2004 SC 1625 : (2004) 3 SCC 75 , and P.A. Inamdas and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and others 2004 (8) SCC 193, are in favour of the Sate that no clarification can be given by the High Court to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, with all fairness Miss. Sangeeta Chandra placed before us a judgment rendered in M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Shramik Sena, AIR 2001 SC 3510 : (2001) 7 SCC 469 , of which para 8 reads as under: We have perused the impugned order of the High Court. We are unable to appreciate the approach of the High Court. Even when it was faced with diametrically apposite (sic opposite) interpretation of the judgment of this Court, it was expected of the High Court to decide the case (writ petition) on merit according to its own interpretation of the said judgment. Instead the High Court after referring to rival contentions of the parties, in para 3, observed thus: In our view, the right course for the Petitioner will be to approach the Apex Court and to seek a clarification of the said order. Mr. Singhvi is agreeable to take necessary steps. and having directed the Appellants herein to take back the employees for a period of four months or until order is passed by this Court, whichever is earlier, disposed of the writ petition. 7. Sri A.P. Singh agreed with the condition raised by the learned State counsel and prayed that a direction be issued to the State Government to consider the case of the Petitioner for payment of pension in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court. 8. 7. Sri A.P. Singh agreed with the condition raised by the learned State counsel and prayed that a direction be issued to the State Government to consider the case of the Petitioner for payment of pension in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court. 8. Since the Petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation and is now said to be of 63 years, we direct the State Government to consider and pass necessary orders in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court with regard to the payment of pensionary benefits to the Petitioner within one month from the date of production of this order. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.