Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 147 (UTT)

STATE OF U. P. v. SHYAM LAL GUPTA

2014-04-01

BARIN GHOSH, V.K.BIST

body2014
JUDGMENT BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) The salary of respondent No. 1, w.e.f. 1st August, 1979, was fixed at Rs. 930/-. He reached the age of superannuation on 30th April, 1999. On 14th June, 1999, writ petitioners held out to respondent No. 1 that he was entitled to Rs.770/- w.e.f. 1st August, 1979 and, accordingly, was entitled to Rs. 9,375/- instead of Rs.10,750/- w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. Accordingly, his salary stood reduced by about Rs.1000/- per month and a direction for recovery of Rs. 2,02,202/- from the pension of respondent No. 1was given. This decision was successfully challenged by respondent No. 1 in Claim Petition No. 109 of 2000, which was allowed on 9th August, 2001. By the order dated 9th August, 2001, although opportunity was given to the writ petitioners to go into the question afresh, but the same was never done. Inasmuch as the order of the Tribunal dated 9th August, 2001 was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 16th December, 2002. Respondent No. 1, then, approached the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 21885 of 2003, when, by an order dated 19th May, 2003, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court permitted respondent No. 1 to make a representation pertaining to retiral dues, with a direction to decide the same in accordance with law immediately thereafter. Accordingly, a representation was made and the same was decided without a whisper as to why respondent No. 1 was not entitled to Rs. 930/- w.e.f. 1st August, 1979 and was only entitled to Rs. 770/- w.e.f. 1st August, 1979. 2. Respondent No. 1 was working in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, District Dehradun. The office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, District Dehradun, after creation of the State of Uttarakhand, at the instance of respondent No. 1, found that respondent No. 1 was entitled to Rs. 930/- w.e.f. 1st August, 1979 and, accordingly, made a recommendation to proceed on that basis for the purpose of settlement of the retiral dues of respondent No. 1. This was not given any heed to by the petitioners and, accordingly, respondent No. 1 was, once again, compelled to approach the Tribunal, but this time at Dehradun. Before the Tribunal, petitioners did not contend that the Tribunal at Dehradun has no jurisdiction over the matter. This was not given any heed to by the petitioners and, accordingly, respondent No. 1 was, once again, compelled to approach the Tribunal, but this time at Dehradun. Before the Tribunal, petitioners did not contend that the Tribunal at Dehradun has no jurisdiction over the matter. In the writ petition, for the first time, such a contention has been put forward. Having had not urged before the Tribunal and permitted the Tribunal to decide its jurisdiction, it is not permissible for the petitioners to raise the point of jurisdiction, for the first time, in the writ petition. We, accordingly, reject that contention. 3. According to the writ petitioners, respondent No. 1 was not entitled to Rs. 930/- w.e.f. 1st August, 1979; instead, he was entitled to Rs. 770/- w.e.f. 1st August, 1979. Neither in the counter affidavit filed to the claim petition, nor in any part of the writ petition, any attempt has been made to establish why. Furthermore, no attempt has been made anywhere to show how the alleged mistake could remain a mistake for 20 years and was discovered only after retirement. There is no allegation that, in the matter of fixation of the salary of respondent No. 1 at Rs. 930/- w.e.f. 1st August, 1979, respondent No. 1 had any role to play, forget about making any representation or misrepresentation or anything of that nature. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 was equivalent to Sri Ram Kumar Dhameja, Sri Ram Kumar Tiwari, Sri Mata Deen Pandey, Sri Niranjan Singh and Sri Ram Karan Singh, who were also Junior Engineers and who were also fixed in the pay of Rs. 930/- w.e.f. 1st August, 1979 and were permitted to retain the same; but only an interference was made in the case of respondent No. 1 for no just reason forthcoming in the pleadings. In the writ petition, there is not a single whisper that respondent No. 1 was not equal to those people or that those people were given Rs. 770/- w.e.f. 1st August, 1979 and not Rs. 930/-. 4. It is surprising that, on the basis of whims of one officer of the State, an employee of the State, who has retired as far back as on 30th April, 1999, has not received his terminal dues; his pension has not been correctly fixed; his dues to the tune of Rs. 930/-. 4. It is surprising that, on the basis of whims of one officer of the State, an employee of the State, who has retired as far back as on 30th April, 1999, has not received his terminal dues; his pension has not been correctly fixed; his dues to the tune of Rs. 2,02,202/- have not been released; and, without any just reason, the officers of the State are advising the State to litigate in the matter. We think, these are matters, where the Court must impose exemplary costs and direct recovery thereof from those officers, who have conducted the litigation on behalf of the State, so that, in future, these frivolous litigations are not brought to the Court. In the circumstances, we dismiss this writ petition and direct payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be recovered by the State in the manner as above. 5. After we dictated the order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without any cost.