State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Harpal Singh Yadav

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 584 of 2015 dated 04.12.2017, and the subsequent order dismissing the review petition in Application No. 888 of 2018 dated 25.10.2018.

The delay in the present appeal has been computed only from the date on which the review application was dismissed, and not from the date on which the writ petition was disposed of.

The respondent-writ petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 11.09.2009 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him. However, since no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court filing WPSS No. 472 of 2010 which was allowed by order dated 07.07.2010, and the order of suspension was quashed. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-writ petitioner was reinstated into service by order dated 03.11.2010. Since, however, his arrears of salary was not paid, he filed WPSS No. 199 of 2011 which was disposed of by order dated 04.08.2011 with a direction that the salary of the respondent-writ petitioner be paid till the date of reinstatement i.e. 03.11.2010. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, the respondent-writ petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 269 of 2011, and consequent thereto a sum of Rs. 5,80,518/- was paid to the respondent-writ petitioner for the period of his suspension w.e.f. 11.09.2009 till February, 2011.

On the ground that his arrears of salary were not paid for the period prior to the date of his suspension, the respondent-writ petitioner again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present writ petition. During the pendency of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 584 of 2015, the respondent-writ petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2016. In his order in WPSS No. 584 of 2015 dated 04.12.2017, the learned Single Judge noted that an order was passed on 09.11.2017 recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the Deputy Education Officer, Bahadrabad had raised a demand for allocation of the budget from the District Education Officer; arrears of the respondent-writ petitioner would be paid as and when budget was received; and this submission was again reiterated, and it was stated that the arrears of salary and pension was admitted, and arrears of salary would be paid to the respondent-writ petitioner, no sooner the budget was allocated, and the funds were released to the Deputy Education Officer. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing respondent nos. 2 to 5 to release the pension, and arrears of salary to the respondent-writ petitioner, as admitted to them, within eight weeks from the date of the order. A review application (Application No. 888 of 2018) was filed by the appellant herein seeking review of the said order. This review application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.10.2018, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference.

Sri A.K. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State, would contend that it came to light, after the respondent-writ petitioner's retirement, that the school certificate produced by him, when he joined service in 1992, was not genuine; and, in such circumstances, the said amount was not paid to the respondent-writ petitioner.

Sri Subhash Upadhayay, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would, however, contend that the pensionary benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner was not paid only because the respondent-writ petitioner had not acceded to the demand of a bribe, by Deputy Education Officer who had filed the present appeal, for release of his terminal benefits.

It is not in dispute that the respondent-writ petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2016. When we asked Sri A.K. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-State to show us the source of power of the State Government not to release the pensionary benefits in contemplation of disciplinary action being taken against the employee after he has retired from service, on the ground that the school certificate produced by him 25 years ago, when he joined employment in the year 1992, was fabricated, Sri A.K. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel, expressed ignorance of any such statutory provisions, or of any such Rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Though the respondent-writ petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2016, and more than two and a half years have since elapsed, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the respondent-writ petitioner till date. These factual events do lend credence to the submission of Sri Subhash Upadhayaya, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, that the deponent of the affidavit, filed in support of the application to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, is not releasing on the retiral benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner because her palms were not greased by the respondent-writ petitioner.

The Principal Secretary, School Education shall take action, and submit a report to this Court regarding the source of power of the State Government to take disciplinary action against an employee, who retired from service more than two and half years ago, with respect to allegations relating to his initial appointment in the year 1992. He shall also explain as to why the orders of this Court in WPSS No. 584 of 2015 dated 4.12.2017 have not been complied with till date, though the said order merely records the submission made, on behalf of the Deputy Education Officer, by the learned Standing Counsel that the retiral benefits and arrears of salary would be released as soon as budget is sanctioned. He shall also inform this Court as to how an appeal would lie against a consent order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Post on 22.04.2019.

Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties within two days on payment of usual charges.