Sukamala Roy vs The Union of India

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner was appointed as Trained Gram Sevika on 15th June, 1962 and she is said to have retired on 28th February, 2006. She had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2570 of 2002 for certain reliefs which are also indicated in paragraph 19 of the writ petition, inter alia, for the payment of dues salary since April, 2000; for payment of remaining 20% salary to the petitioner from the date of her promotion as she had always been willing to undergo training, though she was not sent for training; she also prayed for 1st and 2nd Time Bound Promotion w.e.f. 1st April, 1981 and 29th October, 1997 which was allegedly denied to her. She had further prayed for difference of salary upon implementation of 4th Pay Revision which was sanctioned from 1st April, 1986 instead of 1st April, 1981. The said writ petition was disposed of on 31st August, 2006, Annexure-7 in the following manner:

"Heard

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner''s grievance has been redressed. However, the petitioner is entitled to some more amounts for which she may be given liberty to make representation.

In the circumstances, if the petitioner has any further claim, she may make representation before the concerned authority. It is expected that the concerned authority will dispose of the petitioner''s representation by speaking order, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of the same.

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of."

The petitioner pursued a contempt petition thereafter for alleged disobedience of the said judgment. The representation of the petitioner was disposed of through letter No. 6141 dated 17th November, 2009 by the Secretary, Bihar State Social Welfare Board, Annexure-10. The said order deals with several grievances raised by the petitioner in respect of which the respondents had given respective answers. Perusal of the said order indicates that in respect of claim for salary for the period April, 1984 to October, 2002 also under 5th Pay Revision, it has been indicated that difference amount of salary totaling Rs. 2, 76,109.50 had been paid to the petitioner and Rs. 5,89,556/- were also paid at the level of the Board as final payment as the project had been closed on 31.10.2002. In respect of contributory provident fund for the period July, 1986 to October, 2002, a sum of Rs. 47,260 was paid vide letter dated 17th July, 2007. Leave Encashment Amount for 240 days was paid to the tune of Rs. 40,758/- by Bank Draft dated 30th March, 2009. It has also been stated that as per the date of birth of the petitioner on 8th February, 1946 she would reach the age of 58 years on 29th February, 2004, but the Family & Welfare Child Project was closed on 31st October, 2002 itself. Till then the admissible payments have been paid as per Rules. It has also been stated that the petitioner has made claim for payment treating her service till 30th December, 2006 upto the age of 60 years which is not permissible as per the Rules. Further it has been indicated that the petitioner was informed that pension and gratuity is not payable to employees of the said project. Therefore, no further amounts are due to the petitioner.

In the wake of the aforesaid background facts, in the present round of litigation the petitioner is claiming salary for the period from November, 2002 to 28th February, 2006, treating her to be on job till the date, she attained 60 years of age. She is also claiming 20% of her salary said to have been arbitrary deducted. Further claim has been made to treat her age of retirement as 60 years for the purpose and to quash the order dated 17th November, 2009 to the extent that it treats the age of retirement of the petitioner as 58 years and not 60 years.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that all these grievances which were raised by the petitioner have been taken care of and as per the judgment passed in her own case by this Court earlier, it was expected that the petitioner''s grievances have been redressed. It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner being engaged in a project, she is not entitled for enhanced age of 60 years as the project itself was closed in 2002. Further response has been made that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner at Annexure-6 for payment of 20% of the salary said to have been deducted for not able to undergo training, is not applicable to the petitioner''s case as it was passed in the case of another employee. Therefore, according to the respondent, no further relief is permissible to the petitioner.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in response, has reiterated the aforesaid ground and further submitted that the respondents should provide the details of break up of the payments made. Learned senior counsel has further pointed out by referring to petitioner''s representation at Annexure-9 wherein she had made out a case that when relief was granted even to Untrained Sevika by the order at Annexure-6 dated 9th February, 2000, the petitioner having been appointed as a Trained ought to have been made the said payment. The respondent have only relied upon a circular under which Untrained cannot be given 20% salary which was being deducted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the judgment passed in the petitioner''s case and the reasoned order passed after the contempt was pursued by the petitioner. Apparently, in the earlier round of litigation, the said writ petition was disposed of upon categorical submission by the petitioner that her grievances have been redressed. The said grievances have been indicated hereinabove and have been taken from the statements made by the writ petitioner herself at paragraph 19 of the writ petition. The respondents in view of the contempt proceeding have considered the representation of the petitioner by the order passed in her case vide Annexure-7 and given detailed answer to each of her grievance. The claim of the petitioner therefore for 20% salary said to have been deducted is no longer a matter to be re-agitated after the previous round of litigation ended on her submission that her grievances have been redressed. Since the petitioner was engaged in a project which admittedly ended on 31st October, 2002, the petitioner is also not legally entitled to claim that she has to be retired at the age of 60 years on 31st October, 2006 as claimed by her.

Therefore, in totality, upon consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, I do not find that the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, the respondents would provide a break up of the payments made to the petitioner after the project was closed in respect of admissible dues after the last writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2570 of 2002 was disposed of on 31st August, 2006, Annexure-7 within a reasonable period preferably within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.