Babu Lal vs Naresh Gulati, I.A.S.

R.L. Anand, J.—I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record of the case.

Some facts can be noticed in the following manner for the purpose of disposal of the present C.M. No. 4106-CII of 2000.

Earlier the petitioner Shri Babu Lal filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3371 of 1998 in which he challenged the order dated 12th August, 1997. The order was quashed by the Hon''ble Division Bench vide order dated 24th August, 1998 with the directions to respondent No. 3 to take the petitioner back in service and give him all consequential benefits. Respondent No. 3 was also directed to provide alternative employment to the petitioner in view of the directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the instructions issued by the Government on 20th August, 1992. The directions of the Hon''ble Division Bench were supposed to be complied with within one month of the submission of the certified copy of the order by the petitioner. The directions were no complied with, as a result of which the petitioner filed contempt petition No. 1562 of 1998. It was disposed of when respondent No. 3 offered the job of washing boy to the petitioner by stating that he could join duty on any date. On 15th September, 1999 when the contempt petition came up for hearing before my Lord Hon''ble Mr. Justice V.S. Aggarwal, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would join duty after 19th September, 1999, as a result of which the contempt petition was disposed of. Notice of the contempt petition was discharged.

Through this application the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 did not allow the applicant to join duty as a washing boy on the ground that respondent No. 3 called upon the applicant to deposit benefits of gratuity, leave encashment etc. which were withdrawn from the applicant. Counsel submitted that the applicant was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,004/- by way of compensation; benefit of leave encashment Rs. 42,120/-; benefit of G.I.S. Rs. 4,678/-; a sum of Rs. 1,19,796/- received by the applicant by way of G.P.P.; Rs. 84,365/- by way of gratuity, besides the benefit of pension, plus medical allowances etc. The counsel submitted that it was not the import of the order passed by Hon''ble V.S. Aggarwal, J. Since respondent No. 3 had not allowed the applicant to join duty in pursuance of the order of the Hon''ble Division Bench, therefore, directions should be given to the respondent to pay the amount of salary for the period starting from 12th August, 1997 up to 31st March, 2001, the date of superannuation of the applicant.

On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if the applicant wanted to join the services of the department in pursuance of the order of the Hon''ble Division Bench, it was incumbent upon the applicant to return all the benefits which he had availed earlier so that the status of the party may be restored to status quo ante. I am not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. In pursuance of the earlier order the petitioner has received the benefits. He must have spent that money in order to discharge his domestic liability. When the job of a washer boy was offered to the applicant, it was never the stand taken up by the department nor it was import of the order passed by the Hon''ble V.S. Aggarwal, J. on 15th September, 1999. In these circumstances, the action of the respondent for the return of the various amounts is not justified.

Now the next point survives for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the salary etc. In my opinion w.e.f. 15th September, 1999 up to 31st March, 2001 the respondent-authorities must pay the wages which were due to the applicant had he remained in services as on 15th September, 1999. Now fresh directions are given to the respondent to calculate the wages of the applicant w.e.f. 15th September, 1999 up to 31st March, 2001 and pay the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the respondent authorities shall also pay interest at the rate of 6%. It is made clear in this order that further violation by the respondent authorities shall be seen with a serious act of contempt.

Order accordingly.