Kewal Krishan vs State of Punjab

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—This order proposes to decide together two identical writ petitions aforementioned. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP No. 18892 of 2011.

Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 20.9.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby service benefits already granted to the petitioner, in compliance of civil court decree, were withdrawn, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the impugned order.

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents, controverting the facts narrated by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Suit No. 276 of 16.10.1985 filed by the petitioner was decreed by the learned court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 29.9.1986 (Annexure P-11). Respondents were party-defendants in the civil suit. The Civil Court decree was not challenged by the defendants-respondents and the same became final between the parties. He further submits that in compliance of the civil court decree, all the service benefits were granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired from the service on 1.4.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that while passing the impugned order dated 20.9.2011 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 3 failed to keep in mind the true import of the civil court decree, in compliance whereof petitioner had already been granted the service benefits. Resultant effect of the impugned order is that civil court decree has been set at naught. He prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the very basis of the claim of the petitioner was the letter dated 17.1.1984 (Annexure P-5), which was found to be a fake document because issuance of the said letter could not be ascertained from the dispatch register. She further submits that the entire matter was re-examined because of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 6.9.2001 passed in CWP No. 13682 of 2001 filed by some different employees. Learned counsel for the State further submits that since the claim of the petitioner was not found based on the relevant official record, the benefits earlier granted were rightly withdrawn. She prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the cases in hand, both writ petitions deserve to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is a matter of record and not in dispute that civil court decree dated 29.9.1986 (Annexure P-11) has become final between the parties. In compliance of the civil court decree, all the service benefits, which were sought by the petitioner, were granted to him by the respondent authorities. Civil Court decree stood satisfied, accordingly. It is also undisputed between the parties that there was no change in factual position thereafter and the petitioner retired from service on 1.4.2008. Once the civil court decree had attained finality and in compliance thereof, service benefits were granted in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities had no jurisdiction to re-open the issue against the petitioner, under the garb of order dated 6.9.2001 passed by this Court in CWP No. 13682 of 2001, whereby the respondent authorities were only directed to consider and decide the legal notice of the petitioner in the said writ petition.

Order dated 6.9.2001 passed by this Court does not grant any authority to the respondent-department to travel beyond the scope of civil court decree which had already attained finality between the parties. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order was patently illegal and the same cannot be sustained. It is neither pleaded nor argued case on behalf of the respondent-State that the civil court decree was the subject matter of consideration before this Court in any litigation. Civil Court decree was only in favour of the petitioner. There was no another employee, who might be a co-plaintiff with the petitioner. Once the respondent-department has implemented the civil court decree, while granting service benefits to the petitioner, it was not open for the respondent authorities to withdraw said service benefits and that too after his retirement, on a totally unwarranted stand taken with a view to ignore the civil court decree. It was not within the administrative power of respondent-department to ignore the civil court decree. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside, for this reason also.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that since the impugned order is patently illegal, the same is hereby set aside. Petitioner is held entitled for all the service benefits which were earlier granted to him in compliance of civil court decree. The Chief Engineers (Canal), Irrigation Works, Punjab-respondent No. 3 is directed to ensure the strict compliance of the civil court decree as well as the instant order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that whatever service benefits have already been granted to the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted, while granting him the remaining benefits.

Resultantly, both the writ petitions stand allowed, however, with no order as to costs.