Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1 (ALL)

NAND LAL v. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

2007-01-02

ASHOK BHUSHAN

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to release the amount of Rs. 1,12,288/- with interest at the rate of 12%. The petitioner was working as handling labour in the office of Food Corporation of India. Under a Circular dated 3-7-1996 the petitioner made an application seeking retirement on medical ground praying that his son may be engaged in his place. It appears that alongwith the petitioner there were several other handling labourers, who had made applications under the said Circular. After making their applications for retirement on medical ground sometime was taken in processing the applications and the applications were accepted and the son of the applicants were given employment, in the present case, the petitioner’s son was also given appointment. The Corporation, subsequently, took a decision for making deduction of the amount of salary paid to the petitioner and other handling labourers from the period mentioned in the order issued by the Corporation, i.e. from the date of disability on medical ground, till the date of actual retirement. A writ petition No. 10452 of 2003 (Food Corporation of India Workers Union through its Vice President v. Senior Regional Manager and another) was filed praying for quashing the order dated 15-6-2001 which was annexed as Annexure II to that writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition it was mentioned that the Union is competent to file the writ petition on behalf of the workers whose names were mentioned in paragraph 4. It was further mentioned that the cause of action had arisen on account of illegal deduction from gratuity and C.P.F. The name of the petitioner was also mentioned as the last name in the said list. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are extracted below : "4. It was further mentioned that the cause of action had arisen on account of illegal deduction from gratuity and C.P.F. The name of the petitioner was also mentioned as the last name in the said list. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are extracted below : "4. That, the Union is competent under the law to file the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court on behalf of the following workers with regard to the cause of action arises on account of illegal deduction from gratuity and C.P.F. The list of workers are as under : Labour Post/Gang Date of Date of Total Remaining Name Group No. disability on retirement deducted balance medical amount for deduction ground Sahdeo H.L.-1 4.12.99 30.4.2000 22272/- Zero Moti Lal H.L.-1 12.11.99 -do- 41301/- Zero Sukhai H.L.-3 12.11.99 -do- 35252/- Zero ........ ........ ............ ..... ........... ....... Nand Lal H.L.-20 13.1.99 25.9.1999 .......... 112288/- 5. That, the aforesaid employees were working as Handling Labour in the Food storages Depot Chandari at Kanpur, U.P. under the supervision of Food Corporation of India. They are members of the aforesaid union, therefore, the above noted workers are filing the present writ petition through aforesaid Union.” 3. In the said writ petition an application was raised by the Stamp Reporter that the writ petition in fact is for the benefit of workers who are mentioned in paragraph 4 hence the writ petition can be entertained only if the Court fee is paid on behalf of all the workers whose names are mentioned in paragraph 4. The deficiency of Court fee was ultimately made good and the writ petition was finally disposed of by detailed judgment dated 17-10-2003. This Court while disposing of the writ petition made following observations in the last two paragraphs which are extracted below : “This assertion shows that petitioner did not discharge any work after they moved their applications, and continued to receive their salary in due course until their applications were accepted. They were actually paid for the period on account of administrative delay in processing their applications. They cannot be paid benefits of wages beyond the benefits under the scheme. In the circumstances, I find that the petitioner’s stand is not supported by any material of the fact and is not bona fide. For the aforesaid reasons, the reliefs cannot be granted. They cannot be paid benefits of wages beyond the benefits under the scheme. In the circumstances, I find that the petitioner’s stand is not supported by any material of the fact and is not bona fide. For the aforesaid reasons, the reliefs cannot be granted. It is contended that some of the kin of the petitioners have received compassionate appointment. The respondents will ensure that after deduction of the aforesaid amount, the next of kin will be given appointments as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the scheme. If any of the beneficiaries given in paragraph 4 has opted for voluntary retirement after the age of 55 years, their kins will not be entitled the benefit of compassionate appointment under the scheme. The writ petition is disposed off with these directions.” 4. After disposing of the said writ petition on 17.10.2003 now the petitioner has filed separate writ petition praying for release of the said amount of Rs. 1,12,288/-. The amount which is now claimed to be released is the same amount which was mentioned in the order dated 15.6.2001 which was impugned in the writ petition No. 10452 of 2003. Following prayers were made in the aforesaid writ petition of 2003 : 1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.6.2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued by respondent No. 2. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 29.1.2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). 3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to refund the impugned deduction with admissible interest. 4. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 5. The objection which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the present writ petition is not maintainable for the same cause of action and for the same relief. The writ petition was earlier filed by the Union of Food Corporation of India workers which was entertained and has been finally disposed of. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. The writ petition was earlier filed by the Union of Food Corporation of India workers which was entertained and has been finally disposed of. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. A copy of the earlier writ petition and the judgment of this Court dated 17.10.2003 has been brought on record alongwith the rejoinder affidavit. The order impugned in the writ petition was a combined order passed with regard to several handling labourers in which petitioner’s name was also mentioned and the amount to be deducted from the petitioner was the same amount as Rs. 1,12,288/-. From paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition No. 10452 of 2003 it is clear that the said writ petition was filed for the benefit of workers whose names have been mentioned in paragraph 4. The cause of action arose to the petitioner from the order passed on 15.6.2001 for making deduction of Rs. 1,12,288/- from the petitioner. On the said cause of action the earlier writ petition was filed and this Court proceeded to decide the said writ petition on merit. This Court rejected the claim for refund of the amount as noticed above. Thus the submission on behalf of the petitioner raised in the earlier writ petition of 2003 has already been rejected on merit. 8. There are two reasons for not entertaining the writ petition; firstly, the earlier writ petition was specifically mentioned to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner Nand Lal also and the reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions were substantially same. In 2003 writ petition prayer was made for quashing the order dated 15-6-2001 by which the deduction of Rs. 1,12,288/- was sought to be made and by present writ petition mandamus has been sought to release the same very amount of Rs. 1,12,288/-. The petitioner in the writ petition has not even taken the case that the earlier writ petition was not for the benefit of the petitioner. In view of above this writ petition cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 9. Secondly, the earlier writ petition was decided on merit and the learned Single Judge of this Court has refused to quash the order dated 15.6.2001 and upheld the deduction. In view of above this writ petition cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 9. Secondly, the earlier writ petition was decided on merit and the learned Single Judge of this Court has refused to quash the order dated 15.6.2001 and upheld the deduction. In essence, the Counsel for the petitioner is contending to take a different decision from earlier decision taken by the learned Single Judge on same set of facts. The contention has already been decided on merits and an order having been passed upholding the deduction this Bench sitting on co-ordinate jurisdiction cannot take any other decision on this writ petition. 10. In above view of the matter, the writ petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed accordingly. ————