Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 592 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. Chairman cum Managing Director JVVNL

2012-03-06

C.M.TOTLA, DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.7972/2007) filed by the petitioner claiming retiral benefits and reimbursement of medical expenses for heart surgery, after finding the petitioner guilty of abuse of the process of Court by taking false averments about the length of service and concealing the facts that emerged only from the submissions made by the respondents. 2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition while imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/- and has also directed that the petitioner be prosecuted for filing false affidavit. The learned Single Judge has further directed that the amount of costs shall be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one month and in default the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel Mr.Ravi Bhansali who has appeared for the respondents before the writ Court, has been requested to and has put in appearance for the respondents; and we have considered the matter finally at this stage itself. 4. Put in a nutshell, the case of the petitioner had been that he was appointed as helper on 28.03.1953 in the Electrical & Mechanical Department of the Government of Rajasthan and served until 31.07.1978. While, thus, asserting that he had rendered services for over 25 years, the petitioner filed the writ petition with the submissions that he was entitled for pensionary benefits that had not been granted to him and his case remained pending despite inter-departmental communications (Annexures-2 and 4). The petitioner also submitted that due to the old age, he suffered from heart disease in the month of May 2004 and had to undergo surgery at the Escort Heart Institute, Delhi for which, he spent about Rs. 2,36,000/- but the medical expenditure was also not provided to him. The petitioner, of course, averred that he filed a complaint, allegedly as per wrong advice, before the District Consumer Forum, Sriganganagar ('the Forum') but the same was dismissed on 13.09.2004. However, the petitioner did not file the copy of such complaint or the order passed by the Forum. 5. 2,36,000/- but the medical expenditure was also not provided to him. The petitioner, of course, averred that he filed a complaint, allegedly as per wrong advice, before the District Consumer Forum, Sriganganagar ('the Forum') but the same was dismissed on 13.09.2004. However, the petitioner did not file the copy of such complaint or the order passed by the Forum. 5. The respondents filed their counter and, inter alia, averred that the assertions of the petitioner about his having worked upto the year 1978 were wrong; and that he had worked as Helper/Casual Labour from the year 1953 to the year 1957 in Electrical & Mechanical Department and then, until the year 1962, with the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board ('RSEB'). The respondents asserted that the petitioner left the services of RSEB in the year 1962 and until leaving, his appointment was casual in nature and he was not given the regular pay scale. It was also asserted that the payment of CPF deduction from the salary was duly made to the petitioner in the year 1962 itself. While annexing the copies of the application as submitted before the District Forum Consumer Protection, Sriganganagar, the respondents pointed out that the petitioner had clearly stated therein about his having worked until the year 1962 only. It appears that during the course of consideration of the writ petition, the respondents were called upon to clarify the factual aspects further whereupon, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents and a copy of the application, said to have been made by the petitioner in the year 2002 claiming pension but specifically stating that he had worked in the Electrical & Mechanical Department for 10 years and left the services in the year 1962, was placed on record as Annexure R/4. 6. After considering the aforesaid material on record and want of rebuttal by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge found that the assertion of the petitioner about his having worked upto 31.07.1978 was a false one and that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands; rather he had filed false affidavit while concealing material facts. 7. 6. After considering the aforesaid material on record and want of rebuttal by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge found that the assertion of the petitioner about his having worked upto 31.07.1978 was a false one and that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands; rather he had filed false affidavit while concealing material facts. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has attempted to refer to the contents of the communication of the Superintending Engineer (O&M), JVVNL, Sriganganagar dated 22.10.2001 (Annex.2) and that of the Personnel Officer (Distribution), Jodhpur Discom, Sriganganagar dated 12.04.2006 (Annex.4) to submit that as per the said documents, the petitioner retired on 31.07.1978. However, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the contents of the said communications about the date of retirement had been as per the submissions made by the petitioner himself and not on the basis of verification of record; rather such communications were meant only for verification of record. 8. In the face of the contents of the application made in the year 2002 (Annex.R/4) and the complaint as made before the Forum (Annex. R/1), it is more than apparent that as per the petitioner's own assertions, he had worked until the year 1962 only and he was seeking to claim pension with reference to certain decisions of this Court. The suggestions about his having worked until the year 1978 were fundamentally incorrect and stood contradicted by his own admission. Such admissions being clear and unequivocal, and having not been disowned or explained, the learned Single Judge rightly deduced that the petitioner had not been truthful on the material facts in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. Hence, on the merits of the case, we find no reason to show interference. 9. We have pondered over the other part of the order impugned whereby the learned Single Judge has imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner and has directed his prosecution. While we find nothing of infirmity in the order so passed by the learned Single Judge on principles; rather, in a befitting case, this Court has adopted the course of imposing even higher amount of costs but then, in the present case, there are a few factors which, in our opinion, call for modification of the part of the order impugned. The petitioner appears to be a semi-illiterate person who worked as Helper in the Electrical & Mechanical Department. He is said to be about 75 years of age and is said to have undergone heart surgery in the year 2004. The petitioner, of course, deserves to be penalised but looking to the other facts and factors, particularly his old age and ailment, in our opinion, interest of justice shall be served if the order impugned is modified by putting the petitioner to the terms of exemplary costs at an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) while directing him to deposit the same with the District Legal Services Authority, Sriganganagar. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed only to the extent of modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge regarding costs and prosecution; and instead, the writ petition shall stand dismissed on costs of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand), to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority, Sriganganagar within 30 days from today. However, if the petitioner fails to deposit this amount of costs, the District Legal Services Authority, Sriganganagar shall be competent to take all the requisite steps for recovery. 11. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Legal Services Authority, Sriganganagar.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******