Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 39 (JHR)

Noorul Hoda v. Mecon Limited

2015-01-09

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2015
Order Petitioner inter-alia has prayed for following reliefs: (a) For direction upon the respondents to pay retiral dues and arrears of salary on account of Wage Revision w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and difference of Leave Encashment w.e.f. 01.01.1997 to 05.02.2002 accrued due to Wage Revision and also difference of leave encashment from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.1996 with interest @ 18% per annum and cost. (b) For quashing the part of Demand Notice no. 11.79K-10 (1500 stf) dated 07.02.2004 by which House Rent @ Rs. 3/sft/month for the period from 06.05.2002 to 31.1.2004 had been recovered. (c) For payment of interest on Provident Fund accruable on the amount of Wage arrear from 01.01.1997 to 05.02.2002. (d) For payment of LTC for the block year 2000-2001 and 2002-2003. (e) For payment of T.A. from 10.7.1992 to 8.12.1995. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he had joined his service in Hindustan Steel Limited in the year 1963 and on restructuring of Hindustan Steel Limited the services of the petitioner was transferred to MECON in the year 1977. Petitioner was posted at the Head Office, Ranchi as Senior Manager (Personnel) and he retired on 5.2.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. It has further been submitted that consequent upon direction of Ministry of Steel, Government of India the management vide order dated 27th August, 2002 implemented the revision of scales of pay and Dearness Allowance of Executives of MECON w.e.f. 01.01.1997(Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The petitioner although retired form his services on 5.2.2002 but did not get full amount of retiral benefits nor did he get the benefits of revised scale of pay as had been granted, released and paid to other similarly situated employees of MECON Limited. 3. It has further been submitted that the company had paid the arrear of revised salary for the period from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.2002 to regular employees on 21.10.2008 whereas the petitioner although had been paid some amount on adhoc basis but, the amount had not been paid in its entirety. It has further been submitted that the petitioner vacated the quarter on 31.1.2004 by giving undertaking to this Court in W.P.(C ) no. 6723 of 2003 that penal rent @ Rs. 6/-per Sq.ft. It has further been submitted that the petitioner vacated the quarter on 31.1.2004 by giving undertaking to this Court in W.P.(C ) no. 6723 of 2003 that penal rent @ Rs. 6/-per Sq.ft. Per month may not be charged rather, request had been made only to charge the standard rent but contrary to the above undertaking the standard house rent and also meter rent had been taken. 4. Petitioner earlier moved this Court vide W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.2.2009 and when the order passed in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 had not been complied with the petitioner had preferred a Contempt application being Contempt (Civil) no. 429 of 2009 which was dropped vide order dated 16.11.2009. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that claim which is being sought for by the petitioner in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 had not been redressed hence, he has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Management has submitted that the grievances of the petitioner had already been redressed. The petitioner had filed a contempt application but, this Court under its contempt jurisdiction had passed an order dismissing the contempt petition on the ground that the petitioner had not been found entitled for L.T.C. or any amount towards leave encahsment. 6. Thus, it has been submitted that the petitioner has got no fresh cause of action. The grievance which has been raised in the instant writ petition was also the subject matter of the earlier writ petition. 7. As the grievance had already been redressed i.e. the reason the contempt application had been dismissed by this Court after being satisfied that the order passed in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 had already been complied with. It has further been submitted on behalf of Management that the petitioner has got no fresh cause of action and as such, the instant writ petition is not fit to be entertained. 8. Heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties. The facts which has come is that : 1. The petitioner had approached this Court vide W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 raising the same grievance as would be evident from the order dated 18.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) no. 8. Heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties. The facts which has come is that : 1. The petitioner had approached this Court vide W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 raising the same grievance as would be evident from the order dated 18.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 which is being quoted hereinbelow:- “A) For direction to the respondents to pay the retiral dues/benefits and the arrears of salary on account of Wage Revision w.e.f. 01.01.1997,unpaid retiral benefits and the difference amount in lieu of such revised scale of pay on their retiral benefits with interest @ 18% per annum and cost. B) For quashing the Circular No. 11.73 dated 25.8.2003 whereby and whereunder the respondents have decided to realize quarter rent @ Rs. 3.00 sft/month and electricity at cost price upto 15.9.2003 and thereafter @ 6.00 sft/month, without paying the penal interest and cost for the delayed payment of retiral and other dues. C) For payment of any other admissible dues along with penal interest @ 18% per annum and cost”. 2. The petitioner had also preferred a Contempt Application no. 429 of 2009 for non compliance of order dated 18.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003. The order passed in contempt application is being quoted hereinbelow:- “It is stated by the counsel for the respondent-contemnors that the admissible dues have been paid to the petitioner, but he has not been found entitled to L.T.C. and any amount towards leave encashment. Thus, no case for contempt is made out. This petition for contempt is dismissed”. 9. It appears that if the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition will be compared from the prayer which had been made by the parties in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 there is no material difference in the same. 10. Since this Court vide order dated 18.2.2009 passed in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 directed the petitioner to raise his grievance with regard to payment of L.T.C. and Leave Encashment for which respondents management was directed to consider the same within three weeks. It further seems from the order passed in Contempt(Civil) case no. 429 of 2009 dated 16.11.2009 as reproduced hereinabove, the grievances raised by the petitioner in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 had been redressed. It further seems from the order passed in Contempt(Civil) case no. 429 of 2009 dated 16.11.2009 as reproduced hereinabove, the grievances raised by the petitioner in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 had been redressed. Since the authority had passed an order finding the petitioner not entitled to get L.T.C. or any amount towards Leave Encashment thereafter, the contempt application is dismissed. 11. Considering the facts that no fresh cause of action has been accrued to the petitioner since petitioner has not challenged any order which has been passed in terms of order dated 18.2.2009 in W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003. Thus, writ petition cannot be entertained since been filed for the same grievance and moreover, no order has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. 12. So far as prayer no. C and E are concerned the same can also not been entertained in view of the prayer no. C of W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 which is for payment of any other admissible dues along with penal interest. Moreover, even prayer no. C and E has not specifically been prayed in W.P.(S) no.5027/2003 the same can not be agitated in the subsequent writ petition since, on the date of filing of W.P.(S) no. 5027 of 2003 this grievance was with the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be permitted to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance in piecemeal way. 13. Thus, in the entirety of facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed.