Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 181 (JHR)

Vincent Barhi Toppo v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-05

D.N.PATEL, PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
ORDER 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7811 of 2012 dated 22nd January, 2014 whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and the claim of the interest upon the delayed payment has also been rejected by this Court. 2. Counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that this appellant has retired from the service as Additional Collector, Garhwa on 31st October, 1993 and thereafter, at much belated stage, the retirement benefits have been paid and therefore, prayer for payment of interest was made in the writ petition which has been dismissed and hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. 3. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the provision of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and submitted that upon delayed payment of gratuity interest ought to be paid and has further submitted that the retirement dues, which are paid at belated stage, interest should have been paid @ 5% or with any other rate of interest as decided by this Court. 4. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that time and action for the very same payment of interest petitions have been preferred right from the year 1999 onwards including Contempt Case. Never any relief has been obtained for the payment of interest by this appellant except upon delayed payment of salary. Even in a contempt application also, this issue was raised and the said contempt petition has been dismissed. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 5. Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar submitted that previously in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004, there was prayer for the payment of interest of delayed payment of salary for the period running from 1st November, 1993 to 31st October, 1998 thereafter, in contempt matter, proceeding was also initiated for the interest upon the delayed payment, but, the same has also been dismissed by this Court and the said order has been reproduced in the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7811 of 2012 dated 22.01.2014 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 6. 6. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the reason that previously also, similar were the prayers made before this Court and no order was passed in favour of this appellant for payment of the interest upon different retirement dues. Previously, in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004, the following prayers were made by this appellant: “2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of a direction upon the respondents to pay him salary for the period of 2 and 1/2 years during which he was lying ill. (ii) For payment of increment for the year 199091 for two years. (iii) For payment of interest on delayed payment of salary for the period 1.11.1993 to 31.10.1998.” 7. Appreciating the arguments canvassed by the parties, this Court while disposing of W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004 order dated 1st February, 2010 has observed in paragraph no. 7 as under: “7. Considering the above facts, concerned authorities of the respondent State of Bihar are directed to pay interest on the total amount of salary for the period 1.11.1993 to 31.10.1998 at the rate of 5% per annum, calculated from the date when payments fell due, till the date of final payment. If the petitioner has any further grievance, he would be at liberty to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities of the respondent State of Bihar and if any such representation is filed, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order and effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner.” 8. It further appears that thereafter, Contempt Case (Civil) No. 348 of 2011 was preferred mainly for the payment of the interest, but, no relief was granted and no action of Contempt of Court was initiated upon the respondents and the whole order has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in the final order passed in W.P. (S) No. 7811 of 2012 dated 22nd January, 2014. Looking to this order also, no relief was granted to this appellant. Looking to this order also, no relief was granted to this appellant. Learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order as under: “A mere perusal of the instant judgment passed in the contempt case which arose for alleged noncompliance of the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 4133 of 2004 dated 1st February, 2010 would show that the grievances of the petitioners were found to have been redressed by the learned Single Judge and the contempt petition without any substance was dismissed. From perusal of the prayer made in the instant writ application, it appears that the petitioner has been raising grievances one after the other by splitting one cause of action. Moreover, in view of the judgment rendered earlier in successive writ petitions pursuant to which the contempt petitions have also been dismissed, it appears that the petitioner is indulging in abuse of the process of Court by once again filing this petition. In such circumstances, this Court would have been inclined to impose a cost upon the petitioner for wasting the precious time of the court. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a retired person and would be now around 80 years of age having retired in 1993, this Court refrains from imposing any cost. However, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.” 9. In view of the aforesaid chain of litigations and the orders passed by this Court in previous writ petition and in the previous contempt application, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Every time cause of action cannot be separated and a separate litigation cannot be initiated. 10. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.