Vincent Tirkey vs The Union of India and Others

Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of appropriate writs/directions commanding upon the respondents for the payment of all the retiral benefits and arrear admissible salary forthwith.

Sans details, facts as delineated and disclosed in the writ application in a nutshell is that the petitioner was engaged as a labour under the Commanding Officer, 84 Road Construction Coy, General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), SEWAK. The petitioner was doing his labour work for Road Construction from December, 1988 till he was stopped from working in 2006 due to lack of fitness. The petitioner was issued a fresh identity Card bearing Code No. 275 Card No. 193 signed by respondent No. 6 vide dated 27.02.2004 as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application that due to adversarial Environment, the petitioner fell ill in the year 2006. After recuperating, the petitioner reported to the authority for resuming his work but the respondent examined his health and declared him unfit for work and did not allow him to join his duty.

Being aggrieved the petitioner submitted representation on 14.05.2010 to respondent No. 6 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. Since the said representation failed to evoke any response from the respondent authority, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

Per contra the respondent No. 3 has filed counter-affidavit controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that as per the available records, the petitioner was recruited as a casual paid labour on 16th January, 2003 as per daily part-II No. 01/2003 dated 24 January, 2003 with allotted code No. 6224 and vide DO-II No. 03/2003 dated 21.02.2003 the petitioner was discharged on 10th February, 2003 again recruited on 11th February, 2003 with allotted new code No. 6969. During the course of duty w.e.f. 16th January, 2003 the petitioner was discharged on every six months being a break day and recruited after break day with allotted new code number every time till he was finally discharged on 17th May, 2005 with code No. 10810 vide DO-II No. 3/2005 dated 26th May, 2005. It has further been stated that during the course of duty w.e.f. 16th January, 2003 to 16th May, 2005 payment for the following period has been mentioned.

"(a) Payment for the period from 21.10.2004 to 20.11.2004 amounting to Rs. 2160/- has been deposited vide TR No. 3 dated 24.12.2004.

(b) Payment for the period from 21.11.2004 to 20.12.2004 amounting to Rs. 1296/- deposited vide TR No. 3 dated 16.01.2005.

(c) Payment for the period from 21.04.2005 to 20.05.2005 amounting to Rs. 1656/- deposited vide TR No. 1 dated 19.06.2005."

On deposition of unpaid wages, hand receipt for the month of November and December, 2004 was returned to I/C Det which was received stating that the signature did not match with medical sheet. Before rectification the petitioner was discharged from service finally on 17th May, 2005. Finally, hand receipt for Rs. 2160/- has been processed under the same has been passed accordingly and Rs. 1296/- towards unpaid amount for the month of November and December 2004 has been remitted to the petitioner through money order during August, 2006. Unpaid claim is still lying pending which is Hand receipt from petitioner duly signed. In the counter-affidavit, it has further been submitted that as per Government of India Ministry of Transport and Highways letter No. F4 (91/BRDB/61) dated 31st July, 1962 and para 503 of Border Road Regulations, the petitioner is not entitled to any terminal benefits irrespective of the period of his service. So far as averment of the petitioner regarding his work as a labour in road construction from December, 1988 till 2006, it has been submitted that the same is not true hence denied. Actually, the petitioner was employed as a casual labour since 16th January, 2003 till 26th May, 2005 as per Daily Order part-II annexed as Annexure-''E'' series to the counter-affidavit. So far as averment of the petitioner annexing identity Card found enclosed with the writ application is concerned, the same appears to have been made fraudulently and since the signature as put forth in the CPL Recruitment Form Cum medical Examination sheet is not tallying with the signature which was done on the identity card, moreover, no casual paid labours are allowed to carry their identity card at the time of leaving the work because of the security reasons in this highly insurgency prone area and the photocopy of CPL Recruitment Form Cum medical Examination sheet has been annexed as Annexure-F to the counter-affidavit. With the aforesaid submissions, the prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s. Prashant Kumar Singh and Madan Prasad, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Central Government.

After having bestowed my anxious consideration to the documents on records as well as the rivalized pleadings and having heard the counsels at length I find no ground to interfere in view of the facts and reasons stated hereinbelow:--

"(i) The petitioner''s claim for payment of salary from December, 1988 to April, 2006 is not borne out from records nor any document is available with the respondent authority which would go to show that the petitioner worked during the said period, therefore, in the absence of any documents the claim of the petitioner for salary for the aforesaid period is not legally entertainable.

(ii) Moreover the respondent authority very candidly in its submission stated that the petitioner only worked from January, 2003 to May, 2005 and the salary for the said period has already been paid. So far as terminal benefit is concerned, the petitioner will not be eligible to any of the privileges of continued employment under Government, irrespective of the period of his services and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any terminal benefits.

(iii) The assertion of the petitioner regarding his work from December, 1998 to April, 2006 has been stoutly denied by the respondents and the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary with interest in his reply to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3 from 2003 onwards is a matter of disputed facts in the absence of any recordable proof which cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Viewed thus, the petitioner has failed to make out a case to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 3424 of 2010 stands disposed of.