AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Dhan Raj Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.1.2012 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal''], in Contempt Petition No. 339 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal rejected the applications for exemption and grant of more time for compliance of the Court''s order.
Brief facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that opposite party No. 1-Mohammad Yaseen was appointed as Compounder in the Department of Ayurvedic and Unani in the year 1961 and was confirmed on the said post in the year 1963. While working as Compounder, the opposite party No. 1-Mohd.Yaseen proceeded on casual leave w.e.f. 26.7.1976 to 31.7.1976 but subsequently, he fell ill and remained ill for about eight years, for which, he had sent leave applications, medical certificates through messengers as well as also through registered post regularly. After getting fitness certificate, opposite party No. 1 reported for duty on 23.8.1984 but he was not allowed to resume duties and as such, he approached the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 161/II/1991, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.9.1994.
In compliance of the judgment and order dated 23.9.1994, opposite party No. 1 was allowed to resume duties and was given posting in Rajkiya Unani Chikitsalaya, Behta, Gokul, Hardoi but his pay was not fixed and as such, he preferred a representation, even then, no fruitful response was given to the opposite party No. 1. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the State authorities, the opposite party No. 1 preferred a contempt petition, bearing No. 450 of 1997, in which, on the direction of the Tribunal, the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani appeared before the Tribunal on 7.10.1998 and pointed out that the matter regarding period w.e.f. 26.7.1976 to 11.6.1995 has been referred to the Government. However, the Tribunal, vide order dated 7.10.1998, directed the Director to take decisions on the leave applications submitted by the opposite party No. 1 prior to his reporting in the office with medical fitness and the remaining period should be considered by the department according to the judgment of the Tribunal and further directed to correct his reference sent to the Government accordingly.
Against the order dated 7.10.1998, State Government had approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 307 of 2001 (S/B) and this Court, as an interim measure, stayed the order dated 7.10.1998. Thereafter, the representation preferred by the opposite party No. 1 has been considered by the Department and the same was rejected vide order dated 10.7.2001 on the ground that the long period of absence of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.7.1976 to 11.6.1995 could not be regularized by treating it as sanctioned leave and as such, the opposite party No. 1 is not entitled for the salary and other service benefits. Feeling aggrieved, opposite party No. 1 has preferred the claim petition, bearing No. 281 of 2004, before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, vide order dated 29.3.2010, allowed the claim petition with the following observations :
In view of the observations made above, the claim petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.7.01, Annexure No. 1 to the claim petition in so far as it denies the regularisation of the period after sanctioning leave and consequential non payment of service benefits such as pay etc. along with order dated 23.11.98 as mentioned in the above said order dated 10.7.01 are hereby quashed and the Opposite Parties are directed to make the payment of arrears of 50% of salary w.e.f. 23.8.84 to 11.6.95 and regularise the period w.e.f. 26.7.76 to 22.8.84 as per leave applied for after sanctioning the leave due and extra ordinary leave as per leave applied for after sanctioning the leave due and extra ordinary leave as per rules and fix his salary accordingly till the superannuation and thereafter fix his all post retiral benefits including pension and accordingly make payment of arrears of salary and post retiral benefits to the petitioner. Compliance of judgment be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum on the amount payable to him.
Inspite of lapse of considerable long time, the order dated 29.3.2010 has not been complied within its letter and spirit and as such, Mohd. Yaseen-opposite party No. 1 preferred a contempt petition No. 339 of 2010, in which, notice was issued. Thereafter, against the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.2010, petitioner filed a review petition, bearing No. 24 of 2011, along with an application for stay u/s 17 of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1992.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said contempt petition, the Director has put in appearance on 25.11.2011 and has filed a supplementary affidavit, praying therein that one month further time be granted for filing compliance report. Thereafter, the case was listed for 4.1.2012 and on that date, an affidavit was prepared for deferment of the contempt proceedings till disposal of the review petition before the Tribunal but the same could not be filed due to condolence of the death of Advocate. However, the Director appeared before the Tribunal and as such, the case was directed to be listed on 12.1.2012. On 12.1.2012, the said affidavit was filed but the Director did not appear in person on account of urgent meeting of the department organized at Delhi and as such, the Tribunal issued bailable warrant against the Director, directing him to appear in person 17.1.2012 when arguments will be heard on framing of charges. On 17.1.2012, the Director filed an affidavit for exemption from personal appearance as well as for granting time till the disposal of review petition pending before the Tribunal but the Tribunal had rejected the application for exemption and directed the Director (petitioner) to appear in person on 24.1.2012 when charges will be framed. Feeling aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 24.1.2012, the case was adjourned and the matter was fixed for today. He submits that review petition was listed on 3.2.2012 but the same was adjourned and it was directed to be listed on 3.3.2012. He submits that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal did not consider the facts that the review petition has been filed before the Tribunal against the order and judgment dated 29.3.2010, in which, notices were issued to the opposite party No. 1 to file objection and the said review petition is still pending for disposal. He further submits that when the review petition is pending before the Tribunal, the initiation of contempt proceedings for the alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 29.3.2010 is not proper.
Having considered the matter, in all its pros and cons, we are of the view that no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. It may be noted that the Tribunal while passing the impugned order has observed that similar prayer for granting some more time for compliance of the order was earlier also made on which time was allowed. It is further to be noted that the claim petition was allowed on 29.3.2010. Thereafter when the judgment and order of the Tribunal was not complied with, the claimant-Mohd Yaseen filed contempt proceedings which were registered as Contempt petition No. 339 of 2010 wherein notice was issued to the petitioner and on 25.11.2011, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner seeking a month time for compliance of the ordeRs. As an afterthought and with a view to frustrate the contempt proceedings, a belated Review Petition was filed. In our considered view, the Tribunal rightly refused to grant further time as the claimant-opposite party had attained the age of superannuation quite some time earlier and since the year 1991, he is litigating for his legitimate right. Inspite of having order in his favour, he has not been able to enjoy the fruits on account of lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner and other authorities.
In view of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.