High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Kanpur Jal Sansthan v. U.P.Publice Service Tribunal & Others - WRIT - A No. 20421 of 1996  RD-AH 9336 (16 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20421 of 1996
M/s Kanpur Jal Sansthan, Kanpur
U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Brief facts of this case are that the respondent no. 4 was in the centralized service cadre of the local bodies of the State of U.P. In the year 1987, while he was posted as Junior Engineer at the Water Works, Unnao, he filed Claim Petition No. 334 of 1987 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal claiming that he was entitled to promotion as Assistant Engineer from the date when his juniors had been promoted alongwith all consequential benefits, pay and allowances. In the said claim petition the respondent no. 4 had arrayed State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Nagar Vikas, Director of Local Bodies and two other private persons as opposite parties. However, in the meantime, as the respondent no. 4 was in the centralized service, on 13.7.1989 he was transferred from Water Works, Unnao to Kanpur Jal Sansthan. Thereafter, on 30.1.1992, the claim petition filed by the respondent no. 4 was allowed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. Pursuant thereto, the said respondent no. 4 filed Execution Case No. 4 of 1993 before the Additional District Judge, Kanpur in which the same opposite parties were arrayed who were there in the claim petition. On 2.5.1996, the Executing Court passed the following order:
"Whereas the Decree-holder Shri Naval Kishore Gupta, presently employed as Assistant Engineer, Kanpur Jal Sansthan, Kanpur has applied under Order 21 Rule 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for attachment of an amount of Rs. 1,14,402=00, being the amount of arrears of pay and allowances due and payable to him by the State of Uttar Pradesh, in terms of the judgment and directions dated 20.1.1992 passed in the Claim Petition No. 334/II/87, Naval Kishore Gupta, Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and Others, decided by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. II, Lucknow from the Account No. 2053 of the Kanpur Nagar District Administration, controlled by the Collector & District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, you are hereby directed to withhold and keep attached an amount of Rs. 1,14,402=00 from the said Account in the Treasury, Kanpur Nagar subject to and till the further Orders of this Court; you are hereby prohibited and restrained from permitting transfer or making payment of such amount from the said amount to anyone."
Instead of complying the said direction, on 1.6.1996 the respondent no. 5, the Up-Ziladhikari, Kanpur wrote to the Punjab National Bank for recovery of Rs. 1,14,402/- from the Jal Sansthan, Kanpur. Pursuant thereto, on the direction of the respondent no. 5, the Punjab National Bank attached the Account No. 5594 of the Kanpur Jal Sansthan and thereafter prepared a banker's cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,14,414/- from the said account of the Kanpur Jal Sansthan and deposited the same before the Executing Court. In the aforesaid facts, this writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the order dated 1.6.1996 passed by the Up Ziladhikari, Kanpur Nagar and for returning the banker's cheque to the Punjab National Bank for being credited in the account of the Kanpur Jal Sansthan and also for declaring the award of the Tribunal as inoperative and not binding on the Kanpur Jal Sansthan.
I have heard Sri R.M. Saggi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 and Sri S.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 and have perused the record.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not even arrayed as a party before the Tribunal in the claim petition filed by the respondent no. 4 nor was there any direction issued by the Executing Court for realization of any amount from the petitioner, but still the Up Ziladhikari, in a totally illegal manner, proceeded as if he was over and above the Executing Court and issued directions of recovery from the petitioner. The Executing Court had clearly directed the Treasury Officer to attach the account of the District Magistrate/Collector, Kanpur Nagar but instead of complying with the said order, the Up Ziladhikari did not permit such attachment and diverted it against the Kanpur Jal Sansthan. It has been submitted that since the respondent no. 4 was in the centralized service and at the time of filing of the claim petition he was not even posted at Kanpur, the Kanpur Jal Sansthan could not have been made liable for any payment towards arrears of salary and allowances etc. to the respondent no. 4, even though he may have been subsequently transferred to the Kanpur Jal Sansthan.
The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since the petitioner was posted in the Kanpur Jal Sansthan at the time of pendency of the execution proceedings hence the realization of the amount from the Kanpur Jal Sansthan was fully justified.
Sri S.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 has, however, submitted that he is the main aggrieved party and although there are orders of the Tribunal and the Executing Court in his favour but because of the dispute between the petitioner and the State Government regarding who should make payment, he is suffering and is not getting his legitimate dues.
It is very surprising that when the Executing Court had passed specific direction for attachment of Account No. 2053 of the Kanpur Nagar District Administration, controlled by the Collector and the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, instead of complying with the said order, the Up Ziladhikari sat over and above the decision of the Executing Court and directed for realization of the said amount from the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to justify as to under what authority such an order dated 1.6.1996 had been passed by the Up Ziladhikari. The power for recovery as arrears of land revenue is for recovery of legitimate dues from a party. When there was no decree or order for payment to be made by the Kanpur Jal Sansthan, the Up Ziladhikari had no power or jurisdiction to issue orders for attachment and realization of the said amount from the Kanpur Jal Sansthan. The District Magistrate had been made liable (by order dated 2.5.1996) for payment of such amount. He ought to have deposited the amount sought to be realized or else could have challenged the same before the competent court of law but by adopting policy of diverting the recovery of amount from some other party, which had not been found responsible for payment of any such amount, is gross misuse of power of the district administration and is highly deprecated by this Court. The State of U.P. is expected to be fair to its employees and once an order had been passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent no. 4, they ought to have either challenged it before the higher Court or else they should have honoured the same and deposited the amount due immediately. The State Government having failed to do so, would now be liable to pay interest as well as cost to the respondent no. 4 for harassing the said respondent who had filed a claim petition 20 years back in the year 1987, which had been allowed in his favour 15 years back in the year 1992.
For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 1.6.1996 passed by the Up Ziladhikari, Kanpur Nagar, respondent no. 5 is quashed. The banker's cheque deposited by the petitioner before the Executing Court shall be returned to the Kanpur Jal Sansthan forthwith.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, looking to the conduct of the State of U.P., which has not been fair towards the respondent no. 4, it is directed that the respondent no. 6, the State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Nagar Vikas, Lucknow shall ensure that the entire dues of the respondent no. 4 are paid to the said respondent within three months from today alongwith 9% interest from the date it became due to him till the date of actual payment. It is further provided that in case if the said amount is not paid within the aforesaid period of three months, the respondent no. 6 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum, which may be realized from him through execution. However, it is made clear that if the said amount is paid within three months, the State shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% only.
Consequently, this writ petition stands allowed, with costs, which is assessed as Rs. 5,000/-.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.