Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Abdul Gani Bhat vs Chairman Islamia College on 7 June, 2024
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
SWP No. 924/2009
Pronounced on: 07.06.2024
Abdul Gani Bhat .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Petitioner present in person
V/s
Chairman Islamia College .....Respondent(s)
Governing Board
Through:- Mr. M.A. Qadiri, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Petitioner by way of this petition seeks the following reliefs: -
i. Direct the respondent to release all his dues pending for years together to the petitioner with compound interest @ 18% calculated monthly as the same was due month-wise.
ii. Direct the respondents to pay penalty of an amount of 20 lakhs for abusing his office and stopping the petitioner's dues for such a long time without any legal sanction and putting him to virtual starvation. iii. Award appropriate costs to the petitioner.
02. The case setup by the petitioner is that he was an employee of Islamia College, Srinagar, who retired on 30.04.2001. During his service, the petitioner raised his voice against the backdoor appointments made in the college by respondent No. 2. This resulted in unwarranted action by the respondents against the petitioner.
03. The petitioner who was working as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700/- vide order dated 13.05.1993. The respondents, vide order dated 10.05.1999, modified the order and placed the petitioner in UGC scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The petitioner challenged the SWP No. 924/2009 Page 2 of 6 same by way of writ petition, i.e., SWP No. 1921/1999. This petition was disposed of on 08.03.2002 and the order dated 13.05.1993 was quashed and the respondents were directed to release all the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner to which he was entitled as per the judgment.
04. Thereafter, the petitioner filed contempt petition for implementation of the aforesaid order, passed in SWP No. 1921/1999. In the compliance report, the respondents have submitted that as per order dated 28th April, 2004, they have deposited an amount of Rs. 8,34,999/- as due and payable to the petitioner in respect of all the consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits. The Court held that the judgment stood complied and the contempt proceedings were dropped vide order dated 26.08.2009, but the petitioner was provided with a liberty to proceed before the competent forum, if so advised.
05. The contention of the petitioner is that thereafter he continuously approached the respondents for payment of his legitimate dues including Pension, Gratuity, Leave Salary and Provident Fund but the respondents have not released the same till date, constraining him to file this petition for release of long pending dues.
06. The respondents, in their objections, have taken a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that similar relief has already been sought by the petitioner in a writ petition, i.e., OWP No. 1941/2003. In this petition also, the petitioner has sought release of his long pending dues of an amount of Rs. 25 lacs with compound interest and exemplary cost of Rs. 10 lacs. The respondents submit that the petition, on the same cause of action is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of U.P. and others', 2008(1) SCC 560. SWP No. 924/2009 Page 3 of 6
07. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner has received to the tune of Rs. 55,78,796/- from them on the basis of order passed in SWP No. 1921/99, which was disposed of on 18.07.2002, this petition is not maintainable on this count also. The petitioner has been paid all the emoluments from the college authorities and is also getting monthly pension of Rs. 49,000/- per month and the statements of pension and 6th pay commission and DA arrears up to date. The respondents have also placed on record the statement which reflects that the petitioner has been granted pensionary benefits, gratuity and commutation amount of Rs. 7,10,258/- and after deducting the house building allowance and other allowances, an amount of Rs. 5,71,992/- has been paid to him. The five installments of 6th pay commission arrears amounting to Rs. 3,084,50/- and three installments of 7th pay commission arrears amounting to Rs. 3,67,287/- and arrears from 01.04.2018 to 31.05.2019 amounting to Rs. 1,01,489 have also been released in his favour.
08. The respondents submit that the petitioner has already sought a similar relief in SWP No. 1941/2003, record of this petition was summoned from the Registry. Perusal of the record and examination of SWP No. 1941/2003 reveals that the petitioner has sought following prayer: -
i. Stern orders may be issued to the respondents for the release of the petitioner's long pending dues totaling to about Rs. 25 lacs with compound interest @ 18% per annum.
ii. The petitioner may be awarded exemplary costs of at least ten lakhs, besides the costs of the petition.
iii. Writ petition be decided expeditiously preferably at notice stage.
09. In Paragraphs 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner seeks release of pensionary benefits, i.e., pension, gratuity and leave salary and in Paragraph SWP No. 924/2009 Page 4 of 6 7, the petitioner has stated that by that time, Rs. 25 lacs by way of pay arrears, pensionary benefits, provident fund and other long-standing dues are pending with the respondents that they are taking no steps to disburse the same to the petitioner. The petitioner's family is in dire distress and petitioner is deprived of his life's earning by the respondents.
10. This writ petition was listed for consideration on 21.05.2012, when the petitioner appeared in person and his statement was recorded and the writ petition was dismissed. The order dated 21.05.2012 reads as under:
"Petitioner appearing in person does not want to press the writ petition which according to him is stated to have been rendered infructuous. This writ petition is therefore dismissed."
This fact was not brought forth in the pleadings nor the same was brought to the knowledge of this Court. In fact, in Paragraph 25 of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he has not filed any other writ petition for the similar relief.
11. The petitioner has filed SWP No. 1941/2003 seeking similar relief and the same was disposed of on 21.05.2002, on the statement having become infructuous. This fact was not brought to the knowledge of the Court and this petition, for the same relief, has been filed. Paragraphs 6 (xii) and 7 of SWP No. 1941 of 2003 reads as under:
"6. .....
(xii). That even after his superannuation on 30.04.2001 (more than 2 ½ years hence), the petitioner was not paid his pensionary benefits -
pension; gratuity; and leave salary. He has not been released his hard- earned money in his Provident Fund; and the moneys are undisbursed to the petitioner till this day.
7. That by now about 25 lacks of rupees of the petitioner - by way of pay arrears; pensionary benefits; Provident fund; and other long pending SWP No. 924/2009 Page 5 of 6 dues are pending with the respondents and they are taking no steps to disburse the same to the petitioner."
12. The petitioner had thus sought similar relief in the petition filed by him and submitted that relief prayed in the same has become infructuous. These facts were not brought to the knowledge of this Court.
13. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Udyami (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that a writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law.
14. Similar issue was also considered by this Court in the petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., SWP No. 337/2007, wherein, the sole relief prayed by the petitioner was to direct him for pay an amount of compensation of Rs. 10 lacs for the pain etc. caused to him on account of the arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. This Court in SWP No. 333/2007, after going through the record of the petitions filed by him, i.e., SWP No. 411/2001, 142/2002, 1941/2003 and 924/2009, dismissed the petition on 18.11.2015. Paragraph 8 of the same, being relevant, is reproduced as under:
"6. It thus becomes axiomatic that the petitioner had made similar prayers in three of the aforesaid four writ petitions, out of which one has been decided by judgment dated 28.08.2015 and the prayer for exemplary costs and damages of rupees ten lakhs seems not have been pressed, or, at least, it has not been allowed. The other writ petition, containing a similar prayer is pending; whereas one of the three writ petitions, SWP No. 1941/2003, containing the same prayer has been withdrawn by him as having become infructuous and has, therefore, been dismissed by order dated 21.05.2012. He has not even sought liberty to file a fresh writ petition, or avail an appropriate remedy for claiming the damages for SWP No. 924/2009 Page 6 of 6 which he had made a prayer in the writ petition. He, therefore, could not file another writ petition for the same relief."
15. The appeal, i.e., LPA(SW) No. 253/2015, filed against this judgment was also dismissed on 29.12.2015.
16. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of U.P. and others', 2008(1) SCC 560, is applicable squarely to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner has suppressed material facts while approaching this Court, as the core issue in this writ petition is same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment has held as under:
"16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another [(1980) 3 SCC 311], this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt."
17. This petition is, therefore, not maintainable as the petitioner has sought identical relief in multiple petitions without disclosing material facts. Moreover, the petitioner has concealed the fact that the earlier writ petition was dismissed on his submission that it had become infructuous.
18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sindhu Sharma) Judge Srinagar:
07.06.2024 Michal Sharma/PS Whether approved for speaking : Yes Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No