Jharkhand High Court
- Case No.0 Of N Vijay Kr. vs State & Ors. on 12 September, 2014
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
C.W.J.C. No. 3383 of 1998(P)
-----
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
------
Vijay Kumar ......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Forest & Environment Dept.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Ranchi
3. The Chief Conservator of Forest cum Chief Co-ordinator, World
Food Programme, Tasar Forest Division, Dumka
4. The Conservator of Forest, Ranchi
5. The Divisional Forest Officer, World Food Programme,
Tasar Forest Division, Dumka
6. The Range Officer of Forest, World Food Programme,
Tasar Range, Dumka ............ Respondents
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s Manoj Tandon , Binod Kumar
For the Respondent : J.C to G.P.II
Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
-----------
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J:- Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The only issue involved in the present writ application is as to
whether the petitioner has rightly been asked to refund the salary paid
from November, 1991 to 7.5.1995, totalling Rs. 86,848 vide Annexure-
3, impugned order dated 22.1.1998.
3. The attendant facts which needs to be noticed to answer the
issue are as follows:- Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on
22.4.1981; his appointment was terminated on 25.9.1993, which was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 11878 of 1993 by him. The said writ petition was allowed on 20.1.1995 quashing the order of termination with a direction to reinstate him with entire remuneration from the date of termination till this date i.e. the date of the judgment. Petitioner was reinstated on 20.4.1995. The respondent- State preferred Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 312 of 1995 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the meantime also it appears that petitioner also pursued contempt petition for compliance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Pursuant thereto the respondent, upon his reinstatement, took decision to pay the back wages, however subject to the decision of L.P.A preferred by them. The said L.P.A was allowed in 2 favour of the respondents on 27.11.1996 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was quashed. Petitioner, preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter which stood dismissed on 17.12.1997. Since the termination of the petitioner was upheld till the Apex Court, the respondents issued a letter dated 22.1.1998 seeking refund of the salary paid to him for the period from November 1991 to 20.4.1995, when he was reinstated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand of the respondents would create a serious financial hardship upon the petitioner which obviously was granted upon termination being set aside by the learned Single Judge with a direction to pay entire remuneration till the date of judgment. According to the petitioner he has not played any fraud in availing of the said salary for the period in question.
5. According to the petitioner, the amount paid to the petitioner amounts to Rs. 81,029/- as would appear from the letter dated 4.1.1996(Annexure-2) issued by the D.F.O, Tasar Forest Division, Dumka.
6. Having gone through the relevant materials on record and after giving anxious consideration to the submission of the rival parties, this Court however is of the opinion that the claim of refund of the amount paid to the petitioner for the period from November 1991 till 28.4.1995 is not justified in its entirety. The petitioner was terminated from service on 25.9.1993 and by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. 11878 of 1993 on 21.1.1995, while setting aside his termination, learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to make payment of the entire remuneration for the period of his termination till the date of the judgment. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, however was set aside in L.P.A. and the 3 termination of the petitioner was upheld finally up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Petitioner, however after setting aside of his termination had been reinstated in service on 20.4.1995 and served thereafter till the matter attained finality. Therefore, for the period from his date of termination i.e. 25.9.1993 to 21.1.1995 i.e. the date of judgment, petitioner, without having actually discharged any work had availed of the remuneration pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge, which however was subsequently quashed. The said payment were also made with a condition that it would be subject to the result of L.P.A. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that for the period from 25.9.1993 to 21.1.1995 i.e. date of termination to the date of judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is liable to refund the amount of salary availed by him, though he had not actually discharged his duties for the said period as otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment in his favour at the expense of the public exchequer.
7. In that view of the matter, the amount for the aforesaid period would be communicated by the respondents after recalculation within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the aforesaid amount would be refunded by the petitioner,.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The 12th day of September, 2014 A. Mohanty