High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Palat Singh v. State Of U.P. And Two Others - WRIT - A No. 36541 of 2004  RD-AH 6472 (23 March 2006)
Court No. 34
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36541 of 2004
Ram Palat Singh
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors,.
Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2004 of the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1942 of 1998 filed by the petitioner who has appeared before us in person. The Claim Petition had been filed by the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer Grade-II, Chief Engineer Grade-I and Engineer-in-Chief in Public Works Department and also for payment of salary (arrears and regular allowances) and compensation from the date his promotion was due.
The Claim Petition was dismissed by the Tribunal by a detailed judgment dated 4th March, 2004. It has been noticed that earlier the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 1957 of 1984 and Writ Petition No. 2946 of 1988 before the Lucknow Bench. Writ Petition No. 1957 of 1984 was directed against the promotion of one Sharda Nand Mishra while in the other writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the seniority list dated 19th January, 1984 and also claimed his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment dated 30th November, 1993. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 20th October, 1995. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Tribunal indicates that detailed reasons have been given for rejecting the claim of the petitioner and his service record was also not found to be satisfactory which could have enabled him to claim promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. It also indicates that the petitioner had willfully remained absent from duty from 20th January, 1984 to 31st August, 1996 which was the date of his superannuation.
Heard the petitioner in person and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel that they have submitted a short counter affidavit on 10th March, 2006 which is not on record. However, a copy of the same had been supplied to the Court.
In view of the specific finding recorded by this Court earlier and affirmed thereof by Hon'ble Supreme Court it is neither desirable nor permissible in law for us to consider the case of the petitioner for the relief sought in this petition and no fault can be found that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The petitioner cannot also be given any seniority, as he has not impleaded in this petition any person likely to be effected and, therefore, the question of promotion does not arise. The petitioner has also not indicated as to how many promotional posts were available and how many persons had been promoted on that post. Thus for want of necessary pleadings and parties and adjudication of the issue earlier by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted. More so the petitioner remained absent from duty for a long period of 12 years and, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that this is a case of abandonment of service by the petitioner.
By our order dated 16.2.2006 we had asked the respondent authorities to indicate whether the petitioner was entitled for any retiral benefits even in a case of abandonment of service as the petitioner had served for more than 20 years. An affidavit has been filed today by the Superintending Engineer admitting that after completing service of 10 years an employee of the department becomes eligible for retiral benefits in view of the provisions contained in Service Regulation. In the counter affidavit filed on 10th March, 2006 it has also been admitted that as the petitioner had completed more than 10 years of service, he was entitled for retiral benefits but the same could not be paid to him because of the fact that he had never applied for retiral benefits. Admittedly, petitioner kept himself busy in litigation throughout after 1984 and he had been pursuing the legal remedies under some misconception but that cannot deprive him from receiving the retiral benefits for which he is entitled to in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is also entitled for the interest as the interest is compensatory in nature.
Thus, in view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions :-
1. That the petitioner may complete all the formalities within four weeks before the competent authority for claiming the retiral benefits including GPF/PF/Leave Encashment and Pension.
2. In case there is any defect in the application, the statutory authority shall issue a letter within a period of two weeks to remove the same.
3. If any such deficiency is pointed out by the department, the petitioner undertakes to complete the same within a period of 10 weeks thereafter.
4. The claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits shall be considered and a final order shall be passed by the competent authority within a period of 8 weeks thereafter and the interest shall also be made at a rate of 10% per annum.
It is further clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any other relief claimed in the petition.
The Writ Petition is disposed of subject to the observations made above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.