Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Radheshyam Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2020

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        W.P. No. 28076/2018
 Radheshyam (Decd.) through L.R. Smt. Manorama V/s. State of M.P.
                            & others.
                             -: 1 :-

Indore, dated : 14.01.2020
            Petitioner by Shri Shashank Patwari, Advocate.
            Respondents/State by Shri Pawan Sharma, Govt.
Advocate.
            As directed by this Court, today Shri Prem Kumar
Brahmne, Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department
(WRD), Khargone (Officer-in-Charge of the case); Shri Devdhar
Darwai, Divisional Joint Director, Treasury & Accounts, Indore; and
Shri Anand Patel, District Pension Officer, Khargone are present in
person.
            With consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard
finally.

                           ORDER

The petitioner (since deceased now represented through legal heir - wife) has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to comply with order dated 2.7.2015 passed by this Court in W.P. No.9106/2009 by approving pay-scale and pension and pay actual monitory benefit with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :

(i) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Time-

keeper as a daily-wager w.e.f. 12.6.1981. When he was not regularised in service, he approached this Court by way of W.P. No.6091/2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 3.1.2005 by directing the respondents to consider his case for regularisation. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 30.11.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of W.P. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 28076/2018 Radheshyam (Decd.) through L.R. Smt. Manorama V/s. State of M.P. & others.

No.9106/2009. Vide order dated 2.7.2015, said writ petition was allowed by directing the respondents to pass fresh order by taking into account the gradation list which has not been disputed by the respondents. It has also been observed that in case, he is found fit for regularisation, he will be entitled for benefit of regularisation i.e. seniority and all other consequential benefits. The aforesaid order was assailed by the respondents/State by way of W.A. No.518/2015. By order dated 16.2.2016 the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal.

(ii) By order dated 7.9.2017, the respondent No.3 has regularised the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 24.3.1990 in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1530/- and forwarded the case to respondent No.4 for information and necessary action. In turn, respondent No.4 has returned the case of the petitioner to respondent No.3 with an objection that approval from from the Finance Department is necessary.

(iii) Vide letter dated 9.3.2018, the Executive Engineer, WRD, Khargone after calculating the arrears of pay Rs.16,35,621/- payable for the period from 24.3.1990 to 31.7.2016, requested the Chief Engineer to seek an approval from the Finance Department. Vide letter dated 11.7.2018, the Chief Engineer has directed the Joint Director, Treasury & Accounts, Indore Division to make payment to the petitioner so that the order passed by this Court can be complied with. Vide letter dated 18.7.2018, the Executive Engineer sent the service record of the petitioner to Joint Director, Treasury & Accounts, Indore for verification of pay-fixation done by him. Despite aforesaid communication, vide letter dated 31.7.2018, again THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 28076/2018 Radheshyam (Decd.) through L.R. Smt. Manorama V/s. State of M.P. & others.

the Executive Engineer has forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Chief Engineer for approval from the Engineer-in-Chief and the Finance Department. Vide letter dated 20.9.2018, again the Executive Engineer has requested the Joint Director to complete the procedure and to comply with the order of this Court.

(iv) Because of the delay on the part of respondents, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of CONC No.1392/2018.

(v) The aforesaid Contempt Petition came up for hearing before this Court on 24.10.2018 and the same was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition as the contempt petition cannot be proceeded against the Joint Director, Treasury & Accounts because he was not a party in the writ petition and no direction was issued to him. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

3. After notice, respondent No.3, Executive Engineer, in the capacity of Officer-in-Charge of the case, has filed the filed the return on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 by submitting that for compliance of order passed in W.P. No.9106/2009, approval from the Finance Department is necessary. It is submitted that the necessary orders have been passed and the same have already been filed along with the writ petition as Annexure P/4 to P/10, hence no para-wise reply is necessary. The Executive Engineer has filed the reply in a very irresponsible manner. He has not cared to verify that the actual amount has been paid to the petitioner or not. He has annexed order dated 29.1.2019 by which the State Government has granted approval for compliance of the order passed by this Court. The final Pension Payment Order (PPO) has been issued to the petitioner on 16.7.2019.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 28076/2018 Radheshyam (Decd.) through L.R. Smt. Manorama V/s. State of M.P. & others.

4. During pendency of this petition, the petitioner has expired on 26.2.2019 and his wife filed an application for bringing her name on record as legal representative of the petitioner.

5. Respondents No.5 and 6 have also filed the return on 15.11.2016 along with copy of PPO dated 16.7.2019 and the pay- fixation of the petitioner. According to respondents No.5 and 6, they receive the pay-fixation on 21.6.2019 and after following necessary process, the pay-fixation was approved and PPO was issued by the District Pension Officer, Khargone on 16.7.2019.

6. It is clear from the above that the respondents have complied with order dated 2.7.2015 after expiry of four years. The writ appeal was dismissed on 16.2.2016. Even thereafter, the order of this Court was not complied with promptly. The petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2016 and his pension was fixed after three years of his retirement and gratuity amount was released with some delay. Before the petitioner could receive amount of retiral dues in his hand, he expired on 26.2.2019. He contested the claim for regularisation since 2003 and could not get the benefit of regularisation and pension in his lifetime and expired. This Court has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 2.7.2015 with direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order in respect of regularisation of the petitioner and for which the respondents took four years. They have tested the order of Writ Court by way of Writ Appeal and despite that, they did not comply with the order promptly. Respondent No.4 who is present in the Court has failed to give any valid explanation for such a delay caused by respondents No.1 to 4.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 28076/2018 Radheshyam (Decd.) through L.R. Smt. Manorama V/s. State of M.P. & others.

7. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitled till payment of retiral dues. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case in which heavy cost is liable to be imposed on the respondents for non-compliance of the order of this Court for a period of four years during life time of petitioner and cost is liable to be paid to the wife of the petitioner.

8. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the retiral dues of the petitioner to his wife. A cost of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) is also imposed on the respondents. Such a cost be recovered from the erring officers who deliberately caused the delay ( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Date: 2020.01.18 12:15:45 +05'30'