Ram Nath Gupta vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. And Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent, and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay 80% of the back wages by way of damages for the loss caused to the petitioner on illegal termination of his services; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay interest on the amount deducted from the gratuity from the date of retirement till the date of its realization; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay interest on the arrears of salary i.e. Rs. 2,32,388/- from 1977 to 1984 i.e. the period of termination; a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner for the harassment meted to him; and for a writ, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent to pay interest on the due amount, as mentioned in the prayer, in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Gorakhpur University Vs. Dr. Sheetla Prasad : AIR 2001 SC 2433.

Facts, as noted in the order under appeal, are that the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper in 1964 in the U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad, which was later re-named as the U.P. Power Corporation. Criminal case No. 16 of 1985 was lodged against him, and the petitioner was charged of the offence under Section 409 IPC. He was placed under suspension on 06.09.1975, and his services were terminated on 23.02.1977. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioner approached the Labour Court, Meerut which set aside the order of termination, and directed the respondent to pay him full back wages for the period of termination with benefit of seniority etc. A challenge to the order of the Labour Court, by the U.P. Power Corporation, was negatived by the Allahabad High Court. Aggrieved thereby, the U.P. State Electricity Board preferred Civil Appeal No. 2877 of 1993 and, by the order dated 12.05.1993, the order of the Labour Court was modified and, instead of granting full back wages from the period of termination till the date of resumption, the Corporation was directed to pay the appellant-writ petitioner 20% of the back wages.

The Supreme Court observed that, in so far as the salary from the date of reinstatement was concerned, the petitioner would be entitled to the same salary as had been paid to other workmen in a similar post as revised from time to time. Thereafter the petitioner filed WPSS No. 1193 of 2003 and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 21.05.2008, disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to decide upon the petitioner's representation. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Managing Director, UPCL by order dated 13.10.2008.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge, noted that the appellant-writ petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.1998, and had filed the writ petition 16 years after his retirement, which was highly belated; the order of the Supreme Court had been complied with, and the revised salary had been paid to him; a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs had been released in his favour of which Rs. 1.25 lakhs was paid; and the remaining amount was returned by letter dated 02.04.2009.

The learned Single Judge thereafter, relied on Daryao & others Vs. State of U.P. & others : AIR 1961 SC 1457 to hold that, since the issue had been decided inter-parties by a Court of competent jurisdiction, which had attained finality, the doctrine of res judicata would apply. The learned Single Judge further opined that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gorakhpur University was not applicable to the case on hand, since the present case was not one where the Court had awarded full back wages along with interest; on the other hand, the full back wages awarded by the Labour Court was modified by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 12.05.1993; and the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Consumer Education and Research Centre & others Vs.Union of India & others : AIR 1995 SC 922, was inapplicable. After noting that the petitioner had not even challenged the order passed by the Managing Director, UPCL dated 13.10.2008, the Learned Single Judge relied on the three judge judgment of the Supreme Court, in Suraz India Trust vs. Union of India, and imposed cost of Rs.1 lakh for wasting judicial time.

We find no merit in the submission urged, on behalf of the appellant, by Mr. A.K. Sharma, since the order of the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.2877 of 1993 dated 12.05.1993, a judgment inter-parties, has attained finality, and, therefore, cannot be re-opened and re-examined all over again. We shall, therefore, confine our examination to the submission of Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, that imposition of cost of Rs.1.00 lakh is not justified. While we see no reason to disagree with the learned Single Judge, that the appellant-writ petitioner has repeatedly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, though the order passed by the Supreme Court, inter-parties, has attained finality, and such invocation is an abuse the process of the Court, what weighed with us in reducing costs is that the appellant-writ petitioner is a senior citizen aged 80 years. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to reduce the cost imposed by the learned Single Judge from Rs. 1.00 lakh to Rs.20,000/-. The appellant-writ petitioner shall pay the said amount, in terms of the directions issued in the order under appeal, within four weeks' from today.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.