Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2012
Babulal Pathak Vs. State of MP and others
W.P.No.6545/2007
07/08/2012
Shri Bhoop Singh, learned counsel along with the
petitioner Shri Babulal Pathak in person.
Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. This petition is listed today for final hearing but hearing in the matter is not possible and the case has to be adjourned. The question, therefore, is as to whether the case should be adjourned merely on the asking of learned counsel for the State or a compensatory cost should also be imposed for grant of adjournment.
The petitioner Shri Babulal Pathak is more than 75 years of age, he is deaf and he had filed this writ petition in the year 2007 seeking counting of the service rendered by him in the Janpad Panchayat for grant of pensionary benefits.
Records indicate that this writ petition was filed on 16.5.2007, notices were issued on 19.11.2008 and, thereafter, on 26.11.2008 and on 9.2.2009, four weeks' time upto March, 2009 was granted to file reply. Still no reply was filed, therefore, on 30 th of March, 2009, further time was granted to the State Government to file reply.
On 4.5.2009, when the case was taken up, it was found that neither the State Government nor the Janpad Panchayat, Respondent No.5 had filed the reply, therefore, as a matter of last opportunity, two weeks' time was granted on 4.5.2009 and it was clearly stipulated that if the return is not filed, right to Babulal Pathak Vs. State of MP and others file the return shall be closed. Again, when the case was taken up after a period of six months on 17.12.2009, it was found that no return is filed by the State Government inspite of the previous order passed and, therefore, the case was again adjourned granting time to file the return, failing which the personal appearance of the Commissioner, Respondent No.2 was to be insisted upon. The case was, thereafter, listed on 22.1.2010 and when the case was come up for hearing on 22.1.2010, it was found that Respondent No.5 Janpad Panchayat had filed the reply but reply by the State Government was not filed.
Thereafter, the petitioner appeared personally before this Court and requested that he is more than 70 years of age and deaf and as the return by Respondent No.5 is on record, the matter be heard. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances and finding the petitioner to be a Senior Citizen and physically handicapped, this Court on 22.2.2010 passed certain directions. The order passed by this Court on 22.2.2010 was challenged in a Writ Appeal i.e. W.A.No.566/2010 and the learned Division Bench allowed the appeal on 19.9.2011 and remanded the matter back to the Writ Court with a direction to hear the matter afresh in accordance with certain observations made by the learned Division Bench.
In accordance with the observations made by the Division Bench on 19.9.2011, petitioner filed various documents in support of his contention, amended the writ petition and the amendment was also allowed, thereafter, time was granted to the State Government to file the reply on Babulal Pathak Vs. State of MP and others 22.2.2012, 28.3.2012 and again on 25.6.2012 and it was directed that the case be listed for final hearing.
Today, the case is listed for final hearing but hearing in the matter is not possible because the State Government has not filed the reply till date. It is very disturbing to note that of and on in many cases pertaining to payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to Senior Citizen, the State Government has not bothered to file the reply as in the present case and inspite of remand made by the Division Bench, the State Government has slept over the matter for a period of more than 11 months. As hearing of the matter today is again not possible due to the callous attitude of the Government and petitioner present before this Court is required to go back without getting his case heard, under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered that it is a fit case, where compensatory cost should be granted to the petitioner, as no justification is given by the State Government for not filing the return.
Even though learned counsel for the State prays for time to file reply, I am of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, time can be granted only after imposing exemplary cost.
As the petitioner is a Senior Citizen and deaf, interest of justice requires that he should be compensated for the delay.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the State Government shall file the reply and deposit a cost of `25,000/- on or before 21 st of August, 2012 and the matter shall be taken up for hearing on 23 rd of August, 2012. It is made clear that if Babulal Pathak Vs. State of MP and others the cost is not deposited, the return shall not be taken on record.
The cost shall be paid at the first instance by the State Government on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and, thereafter, competent authority shall be free to fix the responsibility on such officer for the lapse in not filing the return and can recover the cost from the officer concerned.
List the matter for further orders on 23 rd of August, 2012.
A copy of this order be supplied to Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd