Patna High Court
Gauri Shankar Tiwary vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... on 12 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)BLJR602
Author: Aftab Alam
Bench: Aftab Alam
ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and Aftab Alam, J.
1. It is unfortunate that this Court has to record the present order in a never ending story of a never-ending litigation even after the litigation was terminal when the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition.
2. There appears to be some vehemence with which the matter is being presented to the Court, thus, leaving the Court with no option but to reiterate the record of the litigation and this Court will do it by taking recourse to the orders which are on record.
3. The first writ petition had been filed by the petitioner at the Ranchi Bench as the High Court then stood. That was C.W. J.C. No. 2410 of 1996(R). The order as had been passed by the Ranchi Bench on 21.12.1996 reproduced:
In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19th February, 1996 passed by the respondent No. 4 Chief Manager State Bank of India whereby the request made by the petitioner for showing the agreement relating to terms and conditions of amalgamation of the Bihar Bank with the State Bank of India. A further prayer has been made for arrears of life time pension from 6.4.1971 to 4.11.1975 which was payable to the father of the petitioner.
The father of the petitioner was an employee of the Bank of Bihar which was amalgamated with the State Bank of India in November 1969 with a condition that all existing employees of the then Bank of Bihar would get the same and similar benefits as of the employee of the State Bank of India and the services rendered in the Bank of Bihar would be taken into consideration and counted for the payment of pension to the employees of Bihar. The father of the petitioner superannuated from the service of State Bank of India (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'SBI') with effect from 4th June, 1971 but his pension was not paid. The father of the petitioner ultimately died on 4th November, 1975 but during his life time, pension was not paid to him, though he was entitled to pension for the period 4.6.1971 to 4.11.1975. After the death of the petitioner's father, his mother was entitled to get family pension and her pension was fixed and she was paid family pension sanctioned by the Managing Director on behalf of the Trustees of Pension Fund on 15th April, 1993. A copy of the sanction order is Annexure 2 to the writ application. Petitioner's further case was that the mother of the petitioner filed a representation before the Assistant General Manager (Pension), S.B.I., Local Head Office. Patna for payment of life time pension of her husband on 8.7.1992. She filed another representation before the Regional Office of Reserve Bank of India, Bombay on 27.7.1993 and the said representation/complaint was forwarded to the respondent No. 5 Joint Chief Officer, Department Banking Operation and Development, Reserve Bank of India. However, the respondent No. 6 informed the mother of the petitioner that the matter regarding payment of pension to her husband for the period 3.6.1971 to 4.11.1975 was being examined by them and he assured to settle that the matter expeditiously . The said information was given to the mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 9.12.1993 which he Annexure 5 to the writ application. However, the mother of the petitioner died on 25th January, 1994 without getting the arrears of life time pension of her husband. The petitioner further stated that after death of his mother he made several representations. However, on 2nd December, 1993, the respondent No. 3 Assistant General Manager (Pension). Local Head Office, S.B.I. Patna issued a letter to the mother of the petitioner to receive the arrears of life time pension of her husband for the period 4.6.1971 to 4.11. 1975 amounting to Rs. 17,000/- and odd. A copy of the said letter is Annexure 8 to the writ application. Since the mother of the petitioner died and the petitioner is the only heir of her mother, he filed representation for payment of compound interest on the arrear of life-time pension but the respondent did not take any step for payment of the said amount together with interest. The petitioner then filed a writ application being CWJC No. 704 of 1995(R) which was disposed of on 11.8.1995 whereby the respondent No. 4 was directed to consider ail the points raised in the representation and pass appropriate order. Then, the petitioner filed representation on 18.1.1996 before respondent No. 4 for passing appropriate order. The petitioner pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent No. 4 appeared before him and requested him to show the copy of agreement signed by the S.B.I. Officers containing the terms and conditions of amalgamation of Bihar Bank with the S.B.I., but the respondent No. 4 rejected the request of the petitioner and in arbitrary manner rejected the representation.
A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of State Bank of India taking various stands and stating that the claim of the petitioner was not sustainable and-the impugned order was passed by the respondent in accordance with law.
I have heard Mr. M.P. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Bank. I have also perused the impugned order dated 19th February, 1996 (Annexure 2).From perusal of the said order it appears that the respondent authorities have considered the representation of the petitioner in detail and . came to a finding that the petitioner was entitled to get arrears of life time pension of his father which comes to Rs. 17,824/-. It was held by the authorities that the aforesaid amount was not payable but purely on compassionate ground the respondent-Bank agreed to pay the said amount. By the said order, the prayer made by the petitioner for payment of compound interest or any simple interest on the said benefit was rejected. The petitioner was, therefore directed to collect the said amount of Rs. 17,824/-.
After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. Admittedly, the petitioner's father who was employee did not claim any pension after his retirement till his death. It was only after his death his widow made a claim and the respondent-Bank agreed to pay the aforesaid amount as family pension but by the time the amount could have been paid, she died. Even after her death the respondent-Bank agreed to pay the said amount to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for payment of compound interest is not justified.
1., therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of life-time pension amounting to Rs. 17,824.17 to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. The petitioner was apparently not satisfied by this order. He wanted compound interest on the unpaid amount of his pension for which the High Court made no direction.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court. This was Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No. 3206 of 1998. The Supreme Court certified the special leave petition as not maintainable and it was rejected. This made the litigation terminal. However, a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner at the Bar of the Supreme Court that he would like to make a fresh representation. The order of the Supreme Court, dated 7.4.1998 is reproduced:
There is unexplained delay of 336 days in filing the SLP. No satisfactory ground is made out. Hence I.A. No. 1/98 is rejected, consequently the SLP does not survive.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that he would like to make fresh representation to the authorities for the amount of interest. He may do so it he so chooses.
6. After the order of the Supreme Court and any representation which the petitioner may have made, he filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. This was C.W.J.C No. 4168 of 1999. A learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by an order of 10th December, 1999. This order is reproduced:
Heard.
The points raised by the petitioner have been considered by learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner at Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court.
It was held that in the facts mentioned in the last para of the order in C.W.J.C. 2410/96 (R) disposed of on 21.12.1995 that the petitioner was not entitled to compound interest on the arrear of pension from the date of retirement till payment.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. This application is dismissed.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed letters patent appeal challenging the order in the second writ petition. On the letters patent appeal, this Court on 29.9.2000 recorded the following order.
The appellant filed two petitions: on the petition as it was registered C.W.J.C. No. 2410 of 1996(R), the issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to compound interest on the arrears of pension payable to his deceased father (who was an employee of the State Bank of India) from the date of his retirement till the date of payment. That petition was decided on 21.12.1996. The Court was not inclined to interfere on that petition. Against that petition, the petitioner went to the Supreme Court.
The S.L.P. was belated by 326 days. The S.L.P. did not survive and accordingly it was dismissed. At the bar of the Supreme Court it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that he would like to make a fresh representation to the authorities for the amount of interest. The matter was left at that The next petition was C.W.J.C. No. 4168 of 1999. It may be noted here that while the earlier case (C.W.J.C. No. 2410/1996-R) was filed before the Ranchi Bench of this Court, this writ petition was filed at the Main Bench. The issue in this writ petition was also of compound interest. The Court was not inclined to interfere with it . The second petition was dismissed on 10.12.1999.
Having filed the two writ petitions, one S.L.P. before the Supreme Court, the petitioner has filed the present letters patent appeal and chosen not to appear at the bar, This letters patent appeal is dismissed.
8. With two writ petitions dismissed, special leave petition having been rejected by the Supreme Court and the letters patent appeal also having been dismissed, now the petitioner filed a Misc. application being M.J.C. N 3584 of 2000 seeking recall of the order dated 29.9.2000 by which the L.P.A. was dismissed. This Misc, application was dismissed by order dated 21.11.2000. This order is reproduced below:
The matter is being put up for admission.
Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against an order of a Hon'ble Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29 September 2000. The miscellaneous application was filed for recall of this order. A mention was made on 16 November, 2000 that the matter be listed. Earlier, the mention was granted. Thus, the matter has been listed after having obtained an order of early listing.
The applicant is not present instead, a mention has been made by a counsel Mr. Satendra Kumar that this case be passed over. Learned counsel making the mention save that he has not been engaged.
The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
9. If this was not enough now the petitioner filed a second Misc. application seeking recall in effect of the order of 21.11.2000 as also the order of 29.9.2000 on the L.P.A. This is MJC No. 3907 of 2000. The petitioner contends that he is seeking an amendment in the prayer to delete the prayer for recall of the order of 29.9.2000. So, it is a prayer for recall of the order by which the earlier Misc. application seeking restoration of the L.P.A. has been dismissed.
10. No such prayer can be granted by this Court and this long story must come to an end. Regard being had to the over all circumstances of the litigation. It is the opinion of the Court that after the Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition, no counsel should have advised to pursue the litigation. It is cases like these which contribute to the docket explosion and arrears of the Court. The Court feels that the matter should be presented with an element of responsibility. As long as the matter was being argued by the petitioner in person, the Court retained comment. Subsequently, when he chose to appear through counsel, this Court feels that there ought to have been a little responsibility to advice his client that there is a limit beyond which a litigation cannot be stretched.
11. The Court cannot help reiterating the observations of the Supreme Court made recently in the case of R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma that a much delayed legislation must become the obligation of the High Court in the matter relating to setting norms for practice at the bar of the High Court. This in itself should be enough arid the time has come that the Patna High Court also must immediately go into the exercise to accept the mandate of the Advocates Act, 1961 to frame rules so that the legal profession evolves the code within themselves to present cases with responsibility.
12. M.J.C. No. 3907 of 2000 is accordingly dismissed.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent as a formality to the Advocate-General, Bihar and the Court expects that the learned Advocate-General will take the first initiative in presenting draft rules to the Court.