Delhi District Court
Sh. Sanjay Kumar vs Sh. Satypal Singh on 10 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRANDEEP KAUR:CIVIL JUDGE-05:
CENTRAL DISTRICT:TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.: 1336/2017
Sh. Sanjay Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Raghuvir Singh
R/o Gali No. 8, Sain Vihar,
Vijay Nagar Bye Pass,
Ghaziabad, U.P. ...... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Satypal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Raghuvir Singh
Permanent resident of Village
Nagla, Ojha, Post Shah Nagar,
Timarua, Distt. Etah, U.P.
ALSO AT:
C/o Sh. Shyampal S/o Karan Singh
R/o Village Satiy Sasni,
Distt. Hathras, U.P.
2. DRM Office of DRM,
Northern Railway,
New Delhi.
3. Sr. DPO
Northern Railway,
DRM Office,
New Delhi Railway Stn.
4. General Manager
Northern Railway Headquarter,
Baroda House, New Delhi. ...... Defendants
SUIT FOR PERMANENT & MANDATORY INUNCTION.
Date of Institution : 15.04.2017
Date of Final Arguments : 12.09.2022
Date of Judgment : 10.10.2022
Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 1 of 14
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for decree of permanent and mandatory injunction, filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per plaint, are as follows:
(a) The father of the plaintiff, namely, Sh. Raghuvir Singh was posted on the post of Technician II in the Northern Railway, New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi whose employee no. was 50303126791 in the C & W Department. The father of the plaintiff expired on 24.09.2016 due to illness. He was working till his death and the retirement was to take place after approx. 5 years of his death. The plaintiff has three brothers and three sisters. Out of three sisters, two are married and one is unmarried who is living with the plaintiff. The mother of the plaintiff, namely, Smt. Premvati Devi is alive and suffering from some unknown mental disease since long. She is unable to understands right or wrong.
(b) The Plaintiff has come to know through some reliable sources that his younger brother, namely Satyapal is continuously visiting father's office and is trying to get the job fraudulently on compassionate ground without getting any NOC from other legal heirs which is highly illegal and against the natural justice. It was also informed to the plaintiff through RTI reply given by the Railway Deptt./Div. Pers. Officer, New Delhi that CGA case has proceeded in favour of Sh. Satyapal Singh.
(c) Thereafter the plaintiff filed his written objections through speed post to Sr. DPO, Northern Railway, DRM (N/R), Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 2 of 14 Headquarter, Baroda House, New Delhi which was duly served upon the concerned authorities. After that no action has been taken by them till date.
(d) The plaintiff's younger brother Satyapal/defendant no. 1 has stealthily taken his ailing mother with him and living at the house of plaintiff's younger sister, namely, Mithlesh W/o Sh. Shyampal R/o Village Satiya, Hathras, U.P.
(e) The PF, gratuity and other benefits of my deceased father may not be released/given to anyone without getting any NOC from all legal heirs.
(f) The plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 25.02.2017 through his counsel to the DRM Norther Railway, New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi-110001. The legal notice was duly received by them but they did not reply the same.
(g) The plaintiff is one of the legal heirs who is unemployed 12th pass and ITI pass in electronics and deserve to get job in Railway Deptt.
With these averments, the plaintiff prayed following reliefs:
a. A decree of mandatory and permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the proceedings started by DRM office/concerned deptt. N/E, New Delhi for providing the job on compassionate ground to the defendants, till the final disposal of present suit.
b. Direct the defendant no. 1 to stop to withdraw the PF & gratuity, insurance and other benefits from the bank accounts of plaintiff's mother (one A/c No. 4597000100110475) or her any other account, if paid to the nominee i.e. mother of the plaintiff.
Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 3 of 14 c. Direct the office of DRM/concerned deptt. not to release the gratuity, PF and other benefits of deceased father of the plaintiff till the final disposal of the suit.
d. Direct the DRM office/concerned deptt., N/E, New Delhi to call all the legal heirs of the deceased father of the plaintiff and distribute equally the financial benefits as well as job on compassionate ground be decided in the presence of his all legal heirs.
3. Written statement was filed by the defendants. Defendant no.1 has filed his WS wherein defendant no.1 submits as follows:- (a) It is submitted that the mother of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 Smt. Premwati had given her consent (letter) to the defendants no. 2 to 4 regarding the appointment of defendant no.1 on compensatory grounds and oral consent was given by the plaintiff alongwith other brothers and sisters. It is further submitted that a call letter was issued by the Northern Railway to the defendant no.1 on 03.01.2016 vide letter No. APP/CG/19164/CG Cell/P-26 for written examination and call for Medical examination and the replying defendant cleared the said exam. Thereafter vide letter No.APP/CG/19164/P-26 dated 03,2017 for selection.
(b) It is partly admitted that the defendant no. 1 has not applied for any benefits of his late father to the defendants 2 to 4. It is submitted that all the benefits etc. are gone in favour of his mother, because she is fully right, title or interest over the dues of her late husband.
The defendant no.1 has denied all the averments and prays for dismissal of the suit.
Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 4 of 14
4. Defendant no.2 to 4 have filed their joint WS wherein defendant no. 2 to 4 submit as follows:
(a) Sh. Raghuvir Singh S/o Sh. Mangal Singh i.e. father of the plaintiff, was working as Helper Carriage Cleaner under SSE/CW/NDLS and unfortunately expired on 24.09.2016 as a result of natural death. During his lifetime he had submitted his nomination in favour of wife Smt. Premwati during service period.
(b) Ms. Premwati being the nominee submitted the necessary pension papers through proper channel with the defendants. Accordingly, as per extent Rule No. of Railway Pension Service Rule, 1993, the following settlement dues have already been released in favour of the family of the deceased as on 01.03.2017.
a. Provident Fund Amount of Rs.1,07,727/-, b. GIS-Rs.53,960/-, c. LE-NIL, d. DCRG-Rs.9,20,550/-(withheld and will be released on receipts of no Demand Certificate associate finance). e. Family Pension @ Rs.18,050/- PM vide PPO Number 20177030300320 dt 01.03.2017.
(c) Ms. Premwati/nominee duly sent a written request letter to the defendants wherein she nominated her son Mr. Satypal Singh (i.e. Defendant no.1) to be appointed instead of her on the basis of compassionate ground.
(d) The defendants considering the written request submitted by the nominee and as per the "ibid powers delegated to DRM's/CWM's/HOD's to consider compassionate appointment in favour of widow/widower or any ward of her/his choice" duly Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 5 of 14 considered the nomination of Satyapal Singh.
(e) The court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the same ought to have been filed before the CAT for the gratuity etc. and the suit is also liable to be dismissed as the same has been filed without giving any notice U/S 80 Civil Procedure Code. The defendant no.2 to 4 are Government Body, who are working as per the rules, regulations and guidelines set by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways and accordingly as per the notification No. E(NG)II/98/RC-1/64 bearing number RBE No. 3/2009 dated 06.01.2009 and on the written request from the nominee nominated Mr. Satyapal Singh (Defendant no.1) for consideration for the post of the said job and also settlement dues have already been released in favour of the family of the deceased as per Rule No.70 of Railway Pension Service Rules, 1993.
5. Plaintiff filed his replication to the WS of the defendants wherein he denied the averments made in the WS and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 22.02.2022, framed the following issues:-
Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer (a) of the plaint? OPP.
Issue no.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in prayer (b, c, and d) of the plaint? OPP.
Issue no.3: Whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD2 to 4.
Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 6 of 14 Issue no.4: Whether the suit is bad for mis- joinder of necessary parties?OPD1 Issue no. 5: Relief.
7. Sh. Sanjay/plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
i. Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is copy of my Adhar Card. (OSR).
ii. Mark A is photocopy of my Election I Card. iii. Ex. PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 are copies of marksheet and certificate of 10th class. (OSR).
iv. Ex. PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 are copies of my mark sheet and certificate of 12th class. (OSR).
v. Ex. PW1/7 is copy of certificate of passing of ITI (OSR).
vi. Ex. PW1/9 is copy of father's pay slip (OSR). vii. Ex.PW1/10 is the copy of death certificate of father (OSR).
viii. Mark C are de-exhibited being the photocopies of the written objections filed by plaintiff alongwith postal receipt and tracking report.
ix. Ex.PW1/12 (colly) are the copies of legal notice dated 25.02.2017 along with postal receipt and tracking report. x. Ex.PW1/14 (colly) are RTI applications and the reply thereto.
PW-1 was cross examined by the ld. Counsel for defendants.
8. Sh. Veerpal Singh stepped into the witness box as Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 7 of 14 PW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for defendants.
9. Sh. Ajab Singh stepped into the witness box as PW-3. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for defendants.
Vide separate statement of plaintiff recorded on 18.05.2022, PE was closed. Matter was then put up for DE.
10. Sh. Satyapal Singh/ defendant himself stepped into the witness box as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Vide separate statement of defendant no.1 recorded on 27.05.2022, DE was closed on behalf of the defendant no.1.
11. Sh. Chandan Singh stepped into the witness box as DW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/1 and relied upon the following documents:
i. Ex. DW2/1 is photocopy of identity card of Late Sh.
Raghuvir Singh.
ii. Ex. DW2/2 is photocopy of death certificate of Late Sh.
Raghuvir Singh.
iii. Ex. DW2/3 is photocopy of Notifications/ Circular bearing No. E(NG)-11/98/RC-I/64 dt. 06.01.2009 issued by Railway Board.
iv. Ex. DW2/4 (OSR) is photocopy of written request submitted by the widow of Late Sh. Raghuvir Singh namely Smt. Premwati.
Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 8 of 14 v. Ex.DW2/5is photocopy of written objection/representation submitted by the plaintiff dt. 10.01.2017. vi. Ex. DW2/6 is photocopy of letter dt. 31.01.2017. vii. Ex.DW2/7 is photocopy of legal notice dt. 25.02.2017. viii. Ex. DW2/8 is photocopy of letter dt. 17.03.2017.
He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Vide separate statement of counsel for defendant no.2 recorded on 02.08.2022, DE of defendant no.2 was closed. Matter was then put up for final arguments.
12. Arguments Heard. Record perused.
My issue-wise finding are as under:
Issue no.1 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer (a) of the plaint? OPP."
13. The onus of proving this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed in prayer clause (a) that the defendants be restrained from continuing the proceedings initiated by DRM Office/concerned department N/E, New Delhi for providing the job on compassionate ground to defendant no.1.
14. In the present suit, it is admitted fact that the father of the plaintiff was posted on the post of Technician-II in the Northern Railway, New Delhi Railway Station. The father of the plaintiff has passed away on 24.09.2016. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 has applied to get the job on the compassionate ground. The Department has initiated the process of granting the Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 9 of 14 job on compassionate ground to defendant no.1. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant no.1 has no right to get the job on compassionate ground without getting any NOC from the other legal heirs.
15. The plaintiff in his plaint has stated that the mother of the plaintiff is suffering from some unknown mental disease and she is not able to understand right or wrong. The plaintiff has nowhere pleaded in the plaint that the defendant no.1 has obtained the NOC from Late Smt. Premwati in a motivated manner, knowing the fact that she was incompetent to give any type of NOC or consent. The said fact has come forth in the evidentiary affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. There is no averment in the pleadings with respect to the NOC obtained by the defendant no.1 from Late Smt. Premwati.
16. It is settled law that the parties cannot lead evidence beyond pleadings. Since there is no averment with respect to the NOC issued by Late Smt. Premwati, the evidence with respect to the said averment cannot be appreciated for deciding the present issue. Moreover, the plea that mother of the plaintiff is suffering from mental disease has not been proved by the cogent evidence. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 has not brought any medical document to prove the nature of mental disease from which Smt. Premwati was suffering. Oral evidence is not sufficient to prove the contention of mental disease of Smt. Premwati. The plaintiff has failed to prove the aforesaid contention by cogent evidence.
17. The plaintiff has also challenged the appointment of Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 10 of 14 defendant no.1 on compassionate ground by averring that the defendant no.1 has not obtained any NOC from the other legal heirs. The defendant no.1 has filed the Written Statement, as per which a call letter has been issued by the Northern Railway to defendant no.1 on 31.06.2016. The defendant no.2 in the Written Statement has clearly averred that the defendants has considered the written request submitted by th nominee and has acted as per rules, regulations and guidelines setup by Government of India, Ministry of Railway and as per Notification No. E(NG)II/98/RC- 1/64 bearing no. RBE No. 3/2009 dated 06.01.2009. As per the above mentioned Notification, there is no requirement of getting any NOC from the legal heirs other than the nominee for obtaining the employment on compassionate ground. So the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 has not obtained NOC from other legal heirs is vague.
18. The plaintiff has filed the written submissions in which the plaintiff has highlighted the discrepancy in the evidence led by the defendants. It is settled law that the plaintiff has to prove his case and stands on his own legs. The plaintiff cannot take the advantage of the weakness in the case of the defendant.
In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has failed to prove the Issue no.1 therefore, the Issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue no.2 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in prayer (b, c, and d) of the plaint? OPP."
Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 11 of 14
19. The burden of prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed that the defendant no.1 be stopped from withdrawing the PF, gratuity, insurance and other benefits from the bank account of plaintiff's mother, if any, paid to the nominee i.e. plaintiff's mother.
20. The plaintiff has not lead any evidence to prove that the nominee i.e. plaintiff's mother has received any benefits i.e. PF, gratuity and insurance and the same is being withdrawn by the defendant no.1.
21. In absence of concrete and cogent evidence, no such relief can be granted to the plaintiff.
22. The plaintiff has also sought the relief that the Department be directed not to release gratuity, PF and other benefits of deceased father of the plaintiff till final disposal of the suit. The abovesaid relief was in the nature of temporary relief and the same has become infructuous as the suit is already being decided vide the present judgment.
23. The plaintiff has also sought the relief that the DRM Office/ concerned department N/E New Delhi, be directed to call all legal heirs and distribute the equally the financial benefits as well as job on compassionate ground. There is no law which requires the Government Department to call all legal heirs and equally distribute the financial benefits. The Government Department acts, as per the Rules and Regulations of the Department. The plaintiff has not filed the Rules and Regulations Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 12 of 14 according to which the said relief is claimed.
In view of the above discussion, the Issue no.2 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue no.3 "Whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD2 to 4."
24. The burden of proof of this issue is upon the defendant no.2 to 4. The defendant no.2 to 4 has stated in the WS that this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and the same ought to be filed before CAT.
25. Vide the present suit, the plaintiff has challenged the granting of job on compassionate ground to defendant no.1 by defendant no. 2 to 4 on the ground that the defendant no.1 has not obtained the NOC from the plaintiff and other legal heirs of deceased Sh. Raghuvir Singh.
26. As the matter relates to the challenging of grant of job on compassionate ground, I am of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred.
The Issue no.3 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no.4 "Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD1"
27. The burden of proof of this issue is upon defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 has taken a plea that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant no.1 has not Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 13 of 14 mentioned about the details of the necessary parties. The defendant no.1 has also not led any evidence to prove this issue.
In view of the above discussion, the Issue no.4 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff has failed to prove the case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
29. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
30. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 10.10.2022.
(Kirandeep Kaur) Civil Judge-05, Central District Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi Sanjay v. Satyapal Singh & Ors. pg. no. 14 of 14