Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 641 (PNJ)

Amar Singh - v. State Of Punjab & Ors. -

2009-04-02

SURYA KANT

body2009
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. (Oral) - This writ petition is yet another glaring example of frivolity in litigation. 2. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs :- (i) To direct the respondents to produce the complete record of the case. (ii) To issue a writ of quo-warranto and certiorari to quash the order dated 12.8.2003 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Honble High Court and the order passed by the executing court dated 27.8.2007 (Annexure P-6). (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment of compound interest on delayed payment for the retiral benefits amounting to Rs. 57,90,998.83 calculated upto 28.2.2009 as per the judgment and decree passed by the Supreme Court of India and Rs. 60 crores pecuniary damages and Rs. 5 lac as punitive damages. (iv) To pass any such or similar direction/order as this Honble Court may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. Before adverting to the reliefs sought by the petitioner, a brief reference to the facts may be made. 4. The petitioner was prematurely retired from government service on 31.10.1979. He was paid/granted some arrears of salary on account of benefit of 5 years military service as well as pension and gratuity, during the period from 1981 to 1985. The petitioner filed a civil suit claiming interest on delayed payments of the amount due. The suit was partly decreed holding him entitled to compound interest @ 12% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. The First and Second Appeals preferred by the respondent-State against the above mentioned judgment and decree were dismissed and so was the fate of SLP (Civil) No. 6625 of 1987 which was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 13.7.1987. 5. The petitioner was also dissatisfied with the part decretal of his suit. He also filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge. 5. The petitioner was also dissatisfied with the part decretal of his suit. He also filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge. The petitioner then preferred RSA No. 1160 of 1987 which was allowed by this Court on May 23, 1990 in the following terms :- "V.P. Gautams case (supra) is clearly applicable in the case of the appellant and consequently the appellant is hereby held entitled and is also granted a decree awarding his compound interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the arrears of salary with effect from the dates on which the amounts became due till the date of their actual payment. Similarly, the appellant is also hereby awarded compound interest at the same rate, that is, 12 per cent per annum for the period during which the payment of gratuity and pension was delayed. This appeal is consequently hereby accepted to this extent. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court thus stands modified accordingly. The appellant shall be entitled to his costs in this appeal." 6. The respondent-State preferred an appeal against the afore-said judgment but that was dismissed by the Apex Court. 7. It appears that in the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner, he was granted interest of Rs. 74,820/- and Rs. 4,31,536/- on 28.7.1992 and 5.10.1995 respectively. Before that also, a sum of Rs. 57,964/- was paid to him on 1.8.1987. 8. It further appears that the petitioner also wanted to claim interest on interest and an order to that effect was passed in his favour by the executing court. However, Civil Revision No. 2425 of 2002 preferred by the State of Punjab against the above mentioned order was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.8.2003, holding as follows :- "... The claim which the executing court allowed had not been made before the High court. Neither it was adjudicated nor any direction to that effect was given by this Court. The executing court could not have gone beyond the direction of this court. Accordingly, the civil revision is allowed. The impugned order of the civil judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, dated 8.2.2002 is set aside and the application of the respondent claiming interest on interest is dismissed." 9. The executing court could not have gone beyond the direction of this court. Accordingly, the civil revision is allowed. The impugned order of the civil judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, dated 8.2.2002 is set aside and the application of the respondent claiming interest on interest is dismissed." 9. The petitioner took up the matter in SLP (Civil) No. 20376-77 of 2003 but the same was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 10.12.2004. The petitioners own case is that he preferred a review petition which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 6.4.2005. The petitioner then filed a Curative Petition and that too has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 23.9.2008. A contempt petition was also filed by the petitioner which met with the same fate. 10. The relentless petitioner has now approached this Court seeking a writ of "quo-warranto" as well as a writ of `certiorari for setting aside the order dated 12.8.2003 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 2425 of 2002 as well as the consequential order passed by the executing court. 11. Suffice it to say that the writ petition is not only misconceived and mis-directed but a clear abuse of the process of law also. The petitioner was expected to elaborate as to how a writ of quo-warranto can be sought or maintainable in the present case ? The power of superintendence conferred upon a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, in my considered view, cannot be expanded to hold judicial review of its own orders passed while exercising the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Similarly, the plenary jurisdiction under Article 226, howsoever wide it may be, does not clothe a writ court to sit as an appellate or Revisional Court against its own orders, especially when the concept of Curative Petition under Article 226 is yet not developed or approved. 12. Having tried his luck before the Honble Supreme Court firstly in a Special Leave Petition, followed by Review Petition and then a Curative Petition, the petitioner ought to have been advised to reconcile with his fate and sit at home. 13. It is a fit case to burden the petitioner with exemplary costs, however, having regard to the fact that he is an old retiree and ex-army personnel, I am not inclined to impose the same. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.