Anand Shanker Shukla vs State of U.P. and others

B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents/authorities to release the dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,01,796.57. That fact of the case, in brief, are that-the U.P. State Yarn Company Ltd. (the Company) is a subsidiary spinning mill company of the U.P. State Spinning Mill Company (the Company) duly registered under the Companies Act. In the said Company the petitioner was working as Mill Engineer. He submitted his resignation on 30.7.1998 which was accepted by the respondents and he was relieved on 26.8.1998.

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his resignation having been accepted his dues of leave encashment, gratuity, amount of interim relief and 26 days salary for the month of August, 1998 were not paid to him. He made several representations but no heed was paid by the respondents. Having no other remedy left to him, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 4301 of 2003 which was disposed of by order dated 17.10.2005 with the following directions:

It is open for the petitioner to approach the Chief Executive, U.P. State Yarn Companies Ltd. or the appropriate authority of the State Government for redressal of his grievance by filing a representation. If such a representation is submitted, the same shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said authority or the authorities. The concerned authorities shall delve into the service record, establishment record of the employee/officer and pass appropriate orders for payment of aforesaid claims and dues admissible to the petitioner under law.

In compliance of the said order, the Managing Director, U.P. State Yarn Company Ltd.-respondent No. 3 passed the order dated 23.12.2005.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in the said order, at page 21 of the petition, it has been stated that the Company had to close down on 3.12.1998 whereas the petitioner who had submitted his resignation on 30.7.1998 continued to occupy the official residence and vacated the same only on 31.7.1999. Therefore, for the period for which the petitioner continued to occupy the official residence unauthorizedly, a sum of Rs. 13,200 has been deducted from the total dues of the petitioner calculated at Rs. 1,000 towards rent and Rs. 200 towards electricity, per month, and a final amount of Rs. 88,596 calculated as the amount due to be paid to the petitioner. The order dated 23.12.2005 further states that since the Company had to close down due to financial difficulties and there was no money with the Company, therefore, it was not possible to make the payment of the said amount to the petitioner. It is also stated that the Company has been referred to B.I.F.R. and it is only after the orders passed by the B.I.F.R. that any further action will be possible.

A short counter-affidavit and counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and a third supplementary-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the third supplementary-affidavit, it has been stated that an agreement was executed on 23.5.2011 towards full and final settlement of all the dues of the petitioner and that the petitioner has no further grievance against the company. A copy of the agreement has been filed as Annexure-TSA-I to the affidavit and perusal of the same shows that the petitioner is also signatory to the said agreement. This agreement further mentions that it is an agreement in the nature of compromise between the Company and the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the matter has already been settled by way of an agreement/compromise between the Company and the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any amount beyond what was settled in the compromise/agreement and, therefore, in my opinion no further relief remains to be granted by this Court. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.