Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar Gupta vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & ... on 3 March, 2009
Bench: Chief Justice, Hemant Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM Nos. 4462 and 4463 of 2007
In CWP No. 9870 of 2004
Date of Decision: 03-03-2009
Surinder Kumar Gupta ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate,
for the applicant/respondent-Nigam.
Shri Sudhir Nar, Advocate, for the non-applicant/petitioner.
T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral).
CM No.4462 of 2007.
CM is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM No.4463 of 2007.
Civil Writ Petition No.9870 of 2004, was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 2.5.2005, with the direction that while the respondent-Nigam, could withhold a sum of Rs.68,132/-, it shall release the balance amount, payable to the petitioner. The Court further directed that in case Criminal Appeal No.961-SB of 2004, pending against acquittal of the petitioner was dismissed, the withheld amount shall also be paid to him.
CM No.4463 of 2007 in In CWP No. 9870 of 2004 (2) The present application seeks clarification/modification of the said order. It is contended by Ms. Nain, counsel appearing for the applicant- Nigam, that the amount of Rs.68,132/- being withheld by the Nigam, was on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner during his lifetime, in which he was found guilty of neglect of duties, resulting in the passing of an Award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, against the Nigam. On the basis of the disciplinary proceedings, the Nigam decided that 50% of the amount awarded against it, shall be paid by the deceased- petitioner, while the balance 50%, shall be recovered from the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner had questioned the correctness of the said order in a civil suit, which was pending on the date of the order of this Court dated 2.5.2005, but has been subsequently dismissed.
Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased- petitioner, submits that according to his instructions, an appeal against the order of dismissal of the civil suit, has been filed and is pending adjudication before the District Judge. It is in the above backdrop, argued by Ms. Nain, that withholding of Rs.68,132/- ought to have been made dependent on the fate of the suit and the appeal arising from the same and not on the disposal of the acquittal appeal, pending against the petitioner.
There is merit in that contention. The pendency of the acquittal appeal against the deceased-petitioner, was wholly inconsequential for the purposes of withholding of the retiral benefits due to him. The sum of Rs.68,132/- being withheld was on account of disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner, the validity whereof was challenged in the suit and is currently being examined in appeal, filed by the legal representatives. This, in essence, would mean that in case the said litigation CM No.4463 of 2007 in In CWP No. 9870 of 2004 (3) ended in favour of the petitioner, the amount withheld shall also have to be released in favour of the petitioner. That is because, if the order under which the amount was directed to be recovered from the petitioner itself was set aside either in the civil suit or in appeal by the Court concerned, withholding of the amount would be unjustified.
In the circumstances, therefore, the order of this Court dated 2.5.2005, does call for a clarification and is accordingly clarified/modified to the extent that the amount of Rs.68,132/- withheld by the respondent- Nigam, shall be released in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased- petitioner, in case the order passed by the Nigam, on the basis of the disciplinary proceedings held against him, is set aside by the Court in appeal, said to have been filed by the legal heirs. It goes without saying that in case, the order passed by the Nigam, remains unaltered and the appeal is, like the suit, dismissed, the amount already withheld shall be appropriated by the Nigam to itself.
C.M. is disposed of accordingly.
(T.S. THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 03-03-2009 ds