Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 555 (UTT)

Raghu Nath Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-08-20

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service continuously from the date of illegal termination i.e. 13.10.1990 and to grant him pensionary benefits counting the services rendered by the petitioner and further to pay service benefits and wages to the petitioner from the date of the order of Hon’ble High Court i.e. 28.07.2005 till date of attaining the age of superannuation. 2. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that petitioner was initially engaged as Part-Time Pump Operator/Helper in the year 1985 at Kodgi Pump House, Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag. The petitioner continued at that place till 1990. Petitioner filed a C.V. Case No. 504 of 1990 on 13.08.1990 before the Conciliation Officer, Lucknow for regularization of his services but before the Conciliation Officer, Lucknow could pass any order on the application of the petitioner, the services of petitioner was terminated by respondent no. 3 vide order dated 13.10.1990. Petitioner challenged the illegal termination order by raising Labour Dispute before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1995 Raghunath Singh Chauhan vs. Executive Engineer Irrigation Department Rudraprayag and others. The said Adjudication Case was dismissed by learned Labour Court vide order dated 03.06.1998. Feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal of Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1995, the petitioner moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing Writ Petition No. 26742 of 1998 Raghunath Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Others. 3. The writ petition of the petitioner came to be decided by the judgment and order passed by this Court on 28.07.2005 whereby the judgment and award passed by learned Labour Court has been set aside and the termination order as well as award were also set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate in service however he was not paid any back wages. The respondents filed a review petition against the judgment and order dated 28.07.2005, which was rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.05.2006. 4. From the record, it transpires that respondents department took the matter to Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP challenging both the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.07.2005 and 25.05.2006. 4. From the record, it transpires that respondents department took the matter to Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP challenging both the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.07.2005 and 25.05.2006. The SLP/Civil Appeal No. 6501 of 2009 Chief Engineer and Another vs. Tika and Another came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 11.05.2016. Thus, the judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.07.2005 attained finality but before the petitioner could get the benefits, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010. With the aforesaid backdrop, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. During the pendency of present writ petition, vide order dated 19.06.2018, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order: “9. In that view of the matter, this Court while taking suo motu cognizance issued contempt notice to the Chief Engineer and the Appointing Authority of the petitioner Executive Engineer to explain their conduct within a period of one week from today as to why the action under the Contempt of Court Act be taken against them for not complying the orders passed by this Court on 28.07.2005 as well as by the Hon’ble Apex court on 11.05.2016 or it is open for them to comply the order passed by this Court and pass an order of reinstatement and if the petitioner has retired, grant him the benefits from the date of judgment i.e. 28.07.2005 till the date of superannuation.” 6. Pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2018 a compliance affidavit dated 17.08.2018 has been filed by the State. According to the compliance affidavit, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents, under the hands of Pratap Singh, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag, in Para 2 of the said compliance affidavit it is stated that entire amount of service benefits of petitioner, payable to him with effect from 28.07.2005 to 31.07.2010 (till date of superannuation) amounting to Rs.4,15,481/- has been deposited in the saving bank Account No. 11442525898 of the petitioner in State Bank of India, Branch Bheeri, District Rudraprayag though Voucher No. B-27000010 dated 09.08.2018, the Voucher is annexed as Anneuxre C.A.1 to the compliance affidavit. The statement of bank, which depicted the transfer of the amount to the account of the petitioner has also been annexed as Annexure C.A.2 to the compliance affidavit. The statement of bank, which depicted the transfer of the amount to the account of the petitioner has also been annexed as Annexure C.A.2 to the compliance affidavit. The acknowledgement, which is given by the petitioner was also annexed as C.A.3 to the compliance affidavit. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only due to the fault on the part of the petitioner of wrong termination of his services, the petitioner could have been regularized in service in the department. Had he not been terminated vide illegal termination order dated 13.10.1990. Petitioner would have been definitely regularized and would also have been entitled to get pensionary benefits after his regularization by counting his services rendered by him with the department. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the argument, which has been given by learned counsel for petitioner is hypothetical in nature. The benefits, which arose in favour of the petitioner due to setting aside of his termination order by the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already been deposited, paid and accepted by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.06.2018. Petitioner cannot be allowed to submit that he shall be treated in regular service. 9. It is also contended by learned State Counsel that since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, he cannot be given benefit by treating him continuously in service, as contended by him. He further submits that there is no such prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition to treat him in regular service. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds force in the submission made by learned counsel for the State-respondents. Petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.4,15,481/-towards service benefits pursuant to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.07.2005 in compliance of order dated 19.06.2018. The petitioner cannot be treated to be in regular service or cannot be treated to be continuously in service from the date of illegal termination for the reason that before fruit of litigation could reach finally to the petitioner he had attained the age of superannuation and had retired on 31.07.2010. 11. The petitioner cannot be treated to be in regular service or cannot be treated to be continuously in service from the date of illegal termination for the reason that before fruit of litigation could reach finally to the petitioner he had attained the age of superannuation and had retired on 31.07.2010. 11. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition accordingly, is dismissed to this extent.