Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 258 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. Chairman, JVVNL

2012-02-02

VINEET KOTHARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition for claiming retiral benefits in the form of pension, gratuity, and arrears with interest @18% per annum and also to reimburse his medical expenses for heart operation in the month of June, 2004 to the extent of Rs. 2,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. The petitioner in para 2 of the writ petition has stated as under: "2. That the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Helper on 28th of March, 1953 in Electrical & Mechanical Department, Govt. of Rajasthan and he served in the Electrical & Mechanical Department from 28th of March, 1953 to 31st July, 1978 about 25 years and 4 months." 3. With the claimed services of 25 years and 4 months, on the alleged ground of respondents having not paid him the pensionery benefits, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 4. In reply to the writ petition filed by the respondent - JVVNL, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present not only making false averments in the writ petition to his knowledge but has also concealed material facts from this Court. Para 2 of the reply is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "2. That the averments contained in para 2 of the writ petition are denied in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was appointed as helper in the year 1953 in Electrical and Mechanical Department, Government of Rajasthan. However in July, 1957, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board came to be formed. Upon formation of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board in the year 1957, the employees working with the Electrical and Mechanical Department of State of Rajasthan came in Rajasthan State Electricity Board and subsequently became employees of Rajasthan State Electricity Board. However, the petitioner was working as the helper/casual labor from 1953 in the Electrical and Mechanical Department up till 1957 and from July, 1957 to 1962 in RSEB. In the year 1962, the petitioner left the services of the then Board and till that point of time his appointment was casual in nature as was not given regular pay scale. However, the petitioner was working as the helper/casual labor from 1953 in the Electrical and Mechanical Department up till 1957 and from July, 1957 to 1962 in RSEB. In the year 1962, the petitioner left the services of the then Board and till that point of time his appointment was casual in nature as was not given regular pay scale. The payment of CPF deduction so made from the salary of the petitioner was also duly paid to him in the year 1962 itself. It is emphatically wrong to state by the petitioner that he worked for 25 years and 4 months i.e. up till 31st July, 1978 in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. The present writ petition in fact deserves to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of facts as well as on the conduct of the petitioner because prior to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted an application before the District Consumer Protection Forum at Sri Ganganagar in the May, 2003. A true and correct copy of the application submitted by the petitioner before the District Consumer Protection Forum at Sri Ganganagar is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-R/1. A reply to the application in detail was filed by the answering respondent before the District Consumer Formation at Sri Ganganagar denying the fact as alleged by the petitioner. The true and correct copy of the reply filed by the respondents before the District Consumer Protection Forum at Sri Ganganagar on 20.09.2003 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-R/2. The District Consumer Protection Forum thereafter heard the arguments and vide order dated 13.09.2004 dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant while holding him not entitled for any kind of relief. The true and correct copy of the order dated 13.09.2004 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-R/3. The petitioner have conveniently concealed the fact of filing the application before the District Consumer Protection Forum at Sri Ganganagar and not only the same, have also mentioned here in this writ petition that he worked up till 1978 whereas, before the District Consumer Protection Forum, stated specifically that he worked up till 1962 only. The petitioner have conveniently concealed the fact of filing the application before the District Consumer Protection Forum at Sri Ganganagar and not only the same, have also mentioned here in this writ petition that he worked up till 1978 whereas, before the District Consumer Protection Forum, stated specifically that he worked up till 1962 only. The writ petition, therefore, preferred by the petitioner deserves to the dismissed with exemplary cost on the conduct of the petitioner as well as on the ground of concealment of material fact before this Hon'ble Court and making false statement with regard to the service rendered by him. So far as the other averments contained in the para with regard to the writ petition bearing No. 1679/1993, decided on 02.05.1997 is concerned, the same is having no application in the case of the petitioner as well as for a person like petitioner who is dishonest to the Hon'ble Court. So far as the notification dated 06th January, 1999 Annexure-1 is concerned, the same also do not have any application in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, no relief can be claimed on the basis of the same by the petitioner. That the averments contained in sub-para are also denied because in fact the petitioner submitted his option form while mentioning therein that he worked up till 1978 and considering the above fact the detail of service particulars were called by the Pension Department of the respondents from the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer in this turn requested the concerned Assistant Engineer to send the service particulars and record of the employees mentioned in the communication dated 22.10.2011. However, the application submitted before the District Consumer Protection Forum makes it clear that the petitioner worked only up till 1962 and, therefore, the communication dated 22.10.2001 sent by the Superintending Engineer is of no consequent and does not require to be looked into." 5. However, the application submitted before the District Consumer Protection Forum makes it clear that the petitioner worked only up till 1962 and, therefore, the communication dated 22.10.2001 sent by the Superintending Engineer is of no consequent and does not require to be looked into." 5. Thus, from the said reply, it appears that the petitioner who worked only as a helper from 1953 to 1962 when he voluntarily left the services of RSEB has not actually continued in service up to 1978 as claimed by him and the averments made in this regard in para 2 of the writ petition were false to his own knowledge and he also concealed material facts of having approached the District Consumer Forum with the case that he served only up to 1962 and having lost there concealed these facts in the present writ petition. From copy of the complaint filed before the Dist. Consumer Forum produced as Annex.R/1 with the reply of the respondents in para 2, it is clear that the petitioner served as casual helper only between the period from 28.3.1953 to the year 1962 only. Again vide Annex.R/4, a representation filed by the petitioner for payment of pension on the basis of alleged option given by him, though he was not entitled to do so vide inward No. 475 dated 24.12.2002 as would appear from endorsement on Annex.R/4 bottom. In the said representation also, the petitioner has clearly stated that upon leaving services in the year 1962 after having served for about 10 years, he was paid provident fund benefits. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. G.J. Gupta submitted that firstly by mistake the petitioner has stated in the complaint filed before the District Consumer Forum that he served only up to the year 1962 and about concealment of this fact in the present writ petition, he submitted that the said complaint being not within jurisdiction of Dist. Consumer Forum, this fact was not considered material and was, therefore, not stated in the writ petition. Actually the complaint after the reply being filed by the respondents came to be dismissed by the Dist. Consumer Forum, Sri Ganganagar vide Annex.R/3 dated 13.9.2004 produced by the respondents in which the fact of petitioner having served only up to the year 1962 is clearly discussed and found as a matter of fact by said forum. Actually the complaint after the reply being filed by the respondents came to be dismissed by the Dist. Consumer Forum, Sri Ganganagar vide Annex.R/3 dated 13.9.2004 produced by the respondents in which the fact of petitioner having served only up to the year 1962 is clearly discussed and found as a matter of fact by said forum. Still in pursuance of interim directions of coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.7.2009, the respondents again filed an additional affidavit in this Court, a copy of which was given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 25.9.2010, in which again it was categorically stated by the respondents that the petitioner served the respondents only up to the year 1962 and not up to 31st July, 1978 as claimed. No counter or rejoinder to the said additional affidavit or even to the averments made in the reply by the respondents in the main reply filed by them has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. Reliance placed by the petitioner on Annex.4 communication dated 12.4.2006 of Personnel Officer (Distribution) of Jodhpur DISCOM, Sri Ganganagar addressed to the Assistant Engineer (Rural), JVVNL, Sri Ganganagar in which the date of retirement of the petitioner as 31.7.1978 has been mentioned, is also misconceived because the said communication appears to have emanated from wrong exercise of option of pension much after 1962 when he voluntarily left the service and was no more in the service of the respondents at that point of time. The said Assistant Engineer (Rural), JVVNL, Sri Ganganagar has also filed an affidavit in support of additional affidavit filed by the respondents in pursuance of the directions of this Court vide Annex.R/5, in which he reiterated that the petitioner only worked as casual laborer up to the year 1962 and he voluntarily left the job thereafter and he was never on rolls after 1962 itself and in the year 1962, provident fund benefits were paid to him. He had identity EMD Card No. 445 of 1962 as stated in para 1 of the said affidavit of Assistant Engineer (Rural). 7. He had identity EMD Card No. 445 of 1962 as stated in para 1 of the said affidavit of Assistant Engineer (Rural). 7. From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner is guilty of abusing the process of this Court by not only making false averments to his knowledge before this Court in para 2 of the writ petition as stated above, but has also conveniently concealed the facts from this Court which have emerged now only after the reply of the respondents to the writ petition and the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents before this Court, to which surprisingly no counter or rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. Prima facie, therefore, this Court is satisfied that that the petitioner served the respondents only up to the year 1962 as casual helper and thereafter having left the job and having not continued in job up to 31.7.1978, there was no question of his claiming retiral benefits of pension etc. for which he has filed the present writ petition. Such petitioners, who have not approached this Court with clean hands under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, deserve no leniency and deserve to be dealt with strongly, lest fulcrum of justice is vitiated and polluted by such petitioners and persons, who approach the Court with false affidavits and concealing material facts, want to go away with impunity. They are also required to be effectively shut out. 8. Therefore, as a matter of illustrative retribution, while dismissing the present writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/-, this Court also directs that the petitioner deserves to be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for making false averments in the affidavits filed along with the writ petition. The competent authority of the respondent - JVVNL shall be free to file complaint in the competent Court along with this order and the State shall also prosecute the said complaint against the present petitioner. The cost of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited within a period of one month with the High Court Legal Aid Committee, which provides free legal aid to indigent litigants. If such costs are not paid, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.Writ Petition Dismissed as above. *******