AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The applicants were working as Tubewell operators, tubewell Division, Nanpara Bahraich. They were being illegally retired at the age of 58 years. However, according to them, their correct age of retirement is 60 years. They, accordingly, challenged action of the Staterespondents and filed writ petition No.879 (SS) of 2001. Writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 11.12.2003 quashing the orders dated 30.12.2000 and further directing that the petitioners shall be allowed in service till they attain the age of 60 years.
Two things are important to be noted here:
Firstly, according to the applicants admitted date of birth they had already attained the age of 60 years on the date when their writ petition was allowed. Further it is to be noted that the writ petition was allowed following the judgment and order of this Court dated 26th July, 1993 passed in writ petition involving similar controversy filed by Raj Karan Yadava and Others. In the said judgment operative portion reads as follows:
���In view of the above, all the three petitions are allowed and it is held that the age of retirement of all the petitioners shall be 60 years. They shall be entitled to get their retiral benefits accordingly.�
When the opposite parties did not comply with the judgment of this Court passed in favour of the applicants holding that their age of retirement was 60 years, they filed the present contempt application initially against the officers posted as Superintending Engineer, Tubewell Division, Gonda and Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Nanpara, Bahraich, opposite party No.2 and 3. As opposite party Nos.2 and 3 were transferred during the pendency of this contempt application the new incumbents on these posts. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Ghyan Swaroop Srivastava were added as opposite party Nos.3 and 4. Both the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 have filed short counter affidavits and the defence taken for not giving post retiral benefits to the applicants treating them to retire at the age of 60 years is spelled out in paragraphs No.4, 5 and 6 of the short counter affidavit filed by Gyan Swaroop Srivastava, opposite party No.4. According to the opposite party No.4, as the applicant had retired prior to the judgment in their writ petition, they are not entitled to any benefit. It is further stated that they can not claim salary for the period of 2 years as there is no direction in the judgment dated 11.12.2003 for the payment of such salary. It has further been stated in para 7 that opposite party No.4 had already written letters to the opposite party No.3, who in turn has written to the State Government for necessary action and direction but they have not received any further direction from the State Government, as such they are unable to make payments for which there was no direction. According to the opposite parties, the claim of the applicants is beyond the scope of the judgment dated 11.12.2003.
In writ petition No.7355 of 1990 filed by Raj Karan Yadava which was followed in the case of the applicants while allowing their writ petition on 11.12.2003, it was specifically held that the age of retirement of the petitioners therein was 60 years and that they would be entitled to get their retiral benefits accordingly. It is not in dispute that the judgments of this Court dated 11.12.2003 and also dated 26.7.1993 have attained finality.
Once the Writ Court had allowed the writ petition and had quashed the orders passed by the respondents giving notice to the petitioners to retire at the age of 58 years, and further holding that the applicants were allowed to continue till the age of 60 years, there could be no other interpretation assigned to it except that the applicants would be entitled to be treated in service up to the age of 60 years and to be paid their post retiral benefits treating them to have retired at the age of 60 years. All necessary consequences automatically follow even if there is no direction to make payment of their salary and redetermine the post retiral dues. What follows in normal course need not be incorporated in the orders and the orders should be read and interpreted in a meaningful and practical manner.
In view of the above, the defence taken by the opposite parties can not be said to be a valid defence. The opposite parties having failed to comply with the judgment of this Court are prima facie guilty of committing willful disobedience.
Let both the opposite parties No.3 and 4 appear before this Court in person on 9th October, 1007 for framing of charges.
(Ordered accordingly)