Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 230 (PAT)

Phulendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2012-02-07

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent C.R.P.F. 2. The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondent authorities to pay arrears of salary from 16.7.2003 till his re-joining on 19.10.2009 and other consequential reliefs. 3. The facts of this case are not in dispute as this is the second time that the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court. The petitioner had earlier joined the C.R.P.F. on being finally selected and being declared medically fit on 16.6.2003. Thereafter on account of a C.B.I. enquiry in the matter of recruitment process concerned by a letter dated 28.3.2004 the petitioner as well as a large number of selected candidates were directed to go back to their home and information would be sent to them after the enquiry was over. In the C.B.I. enquiry the appointment of the petitioner and many others were found to be valid and accordingly by letter dated 1.9.2005 the petitioner was directed to appear on 26.9.2005 for re-medical check up. On the basis of the said medical check up the petitioner was declared unfit. Ultimately, however, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No. 6067 of 2009 in which it was observed that the respondents themselves on 15.1.2007 were saying that there was no provision for fresh medical test and for the said reason the writ application was allowed by order dated 14.5.2009 and the respondents were directed to accept the joining and allot duties to the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter was allowed to join but the grievance of the petitioner with regard to payment of arrears of salary from the date of initial joining on 16.7.2003 till his rejoining on 19.10.2009 has not been redressed when he was allowed to rejoin. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been kept out of service for no fault on his part and for the fault of the respondent authorities the petitioner ought not to be made to suffer. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been kept out of service for no fault on his part and for the fault of the respondent authorities the petitioner ought not to be made to suffer. In this regard learned counsel has relied upon an earlier decision of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.14711 of 2004 and its analogous case which were allowed by order dated 27.2.2006 holding that the petitioners, who were similarly situated, were not responsible for the impasse which was created on account of investigation being made in the process and mode of appointment of those petitioners and accordingly direction was issued to the authorities of the CRPF not only to accept their joining in the battalion but also to pay the entire arrears of salary. Another batch of writ petitions by similarly situated candidates in C.W.J.C.No.19731 of 2010 and its analogous cases were disposed of by order dated 14.1.2011 holding that the petitioners of those cases were entitled to payment of entire arrears of salary from the date of issue of letter dated 28.3.2004 till their respective dates of joining and also the arrears of salary for the period between the initial date of their joining pursuant to the appointment letter dated 4.7.2003 till the issue of letter dated 28.3.2004. 5. Learned Assistant Solicitor General, however, submits that the petitioner having approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.6070 of 2009 ought to have prayed for the relief for payment of arrears of salary and since no such relief was prayed for the same should be treated as barred on the ground of constructive res judicata. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner having been allowed his joining on 19.10.2009 has now approached this Court after a lapse of two years and there is no explanation for such delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had in the year 2009 approached this Court as at that time the authorities did not allow his joining after declaring him medically unfit on the basis of re-medical test, which was contrary to the rules and this fact was admitted by them. The only issue in the said case was whether the re-medical test was legal and thus there is no constructive res judicata. The only issue in the said case was whether the re-medical test was legal and thus there is no constructive res judicata. The petitioner having been allowed to join on 19.10.2009 had been sent for training on 24.12.2009 which concluded on 13.8.2011 and only thereafter he has come forward to file the present writ petition after his representation dated 23.9.2011 was not considered by the respondent authorities. 8. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any force in the objection of learned Assistant Solicitor General. 9. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court for a direction to quash the letter dated 15.1.2007 issued by the Additional DIG of Police, Group Centre, CRPF not permitting him to join, in view of the subsequent joining being given to the similarly situated persons who had been permitted to join without re-medical check up and no such relief of arrears of salary at that time had been prayed as the petitioner at that time was fighting for getting his job back since the authorities had adopted unjustified and discriminatory procedure in the case of the petitioner. 10. So far as the question of delay is concerned, the same is also well explained and this Court does not feel that any delay has been made by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. As a matter of fact, the respondent authorities have adopted an unfair attitude in the case of the petitioner in view of the fact that a large number of similarly situated candidates have also earlier been given arrears of salary from 28.3.2004 till the date of their re-joining on the orders of this Court passed in several writ petitions. In the said circumstances, the respondent authorities of the CRPF ought to have themselves passed order in favour of the petitioner without compelling him to approach this Court. The respondent authorities have invited unnecessary litigations by not allowing the genuine relief with the resultant increase in the litigation in the Court. It is unfortunate that unless each and every person similarly situated approaches this Court, the respondent authorities do not settle the issues even in terms of the previous order of this Court in the case of similarly situated person. 12. It is unfortunate that unless each and every person similarly situated approaches this Court, the respondent authorities do not settle the issues even in terms of the previous order of this Court in the case of similarly situated person. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed and it is held that the petitioner is also entitled to payment of arrears of salary for the period from 28.3.2004 to 19.10.2009 when he was allowed to re-join on the direction of this Court. He is also entitled to arrears of salary from his initial date of joining on 16.7.2003 till 28.3.2004 when he was directed to go back to his home. The respondents are further directed to pay a cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.