Sudhir Goel vs Biri Singh And Others

Mohammad Rafiq, CJ

CMP(M) No.1412 of 2012

This appeal is barred by limitation having delay of 14 days. For the stated reasons, the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

CMP No.1200 of 2012

This application is filed seeking leave of the Court to file appeal on the premise that the implementation of the judgment has affected the appellant and would have bearing on is career. The application is allowed and leave to file appeal is granted.

LPA No.402 of 2012 and CWP No.7394 of 2012 Aforementioned appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP(T) No.7345 of 2008 filed by respondent-Biri Singh. The respondent-writ petitioner Biri Singh in the aforesaid writ petition challenged the order dated 10.09.1993 of absorption of respondent No.3-Subhash Chand as Senior Scale Stenographer in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission retrospectively w.e.f. 10.09.1993 and also prayed for direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion on ad hoc basis as Superintendent Grade-II. Office order dated 07.07.2001 was also under challenge in the writ petition whereby Subhash Chand was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II on ad hoc basis.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the promotion order dated 07.07.2001 of respondent No.-3 Subhash Chand and directed respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the case of the writ petitioner-Biri Singh for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II on ad hoc basis from due date with all consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks. However, in order to balance the equities, since respondent No.3 has already retired from service, no recoveries shall be effected from the pensionary/retiral benefits of respondent No.3- Subhash Chand.

Apart from filing the appeal, appellant-Sudhir Goel has also filed the CWP No.7394 of 2012 with a prayer for direction to the respondents not to demote him from the post of Reader to which post he was promoted on 18.07.2012 vide Annexure P-3 and not to grant seniority to respondent No.3-Biri Singh (writ petitioner in CWP(T) No.7345 of 2008) as Superintendent Grade-II over and above the petitioner. This Court, while issuing notice in the writ petition on 04.09.2012, passed the following order:

"Notice to respondent No.3. In case the petitioner is to be demoted from the post of Reader, the order in that regard shall be implemented only after obtaining permission from the Court. Reply within six weeks. Post alongwith LPA No.402 of 2012 on 30.10.2012

Authenticated copy."

Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the appellant and the writ petitioner, submits that in course of time the appellant-Sudhir Goel has retired from service on 31st March, 2017 and that by virtue of aforementioned interim order dated 04.09.2012, he continued to serve on the post of Reader and all retiral/pensionary benefits have accordingly been paid to him. He has argued that the judgment dated 10.07.20212, passed in the writ petition filed by Biri Singh, directing the respondents not to effect any recoveries from the pensionary/retiral benefits of respondent No.3-Subhash Chand in that case should also be passed in favour of the petitioner/appellant in the present matters.

Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Biri Singh, the original writ petitioner and respondent No.3 in the present writ petition also submits that the judgment dated 10.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was fully implemented and the petitioner was granted all the benefits which were liable to be granted to him, pursuant to the aforesaid judgment. His Client has also retired from service. He further submits that since appellant-Sudhir Goel and respondent No.3-Biri Singh have also retired from service, the directions, which were issued in the writ petition filed by Biri Singh that no recovery should be effected from the pensionary/retiral benefits of Subhash Chand, who was respondent No.3 in that writ petition, should also be passed in the present matters.

These matters are pending before this Court for the last nine years. It is not in dispute that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of Biri Singh was not assailed by the State Government or by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and consequently he has received all the benefits. As far as Sudhir Goel is concerned he has not only filed the appeal, apprehending adverse effect from the implementation of the aforementioned judgment, but, also filed a separate writ petition in which this Court vide order dated 04.09.2012, directed that in case the petitioner is demoted from the post of Reader, the order in that regard shall be implemented only after obtaining permission from the Court. It is not disputed that no such application was ever filed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking any such permission. Resultantly, Sudhir Goel continued to serve on the post of Reader till his retirement from service on 31.03.2017.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant-Sudhir Goel a xnd respondent No.3- Biri Singh and direct that whatever pensionary/retiral benefits have been granted to them shall not be withdrawn and no recovery with regard to the same shall be effected from any one of them.

Accordingly, the appeal as well as the writ petition are

disposed of.