Allahabad High Court
Radhey Lal Verma vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 20 March, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33566 of 2019
Petitioner :- Radhey Lal Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Jogendra Nath Verma, learned Standing Counsel, representing respondents - State Authorities.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, seeking quashing of the order dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner's claim for absorption in government service after he was retrenched from the services of Panchayat Raj Vitt Vikas Nigam Limied vide order dated 31.03.2004 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had attained retirement age on 06.07.2017. Five other persons were absorbed vide order dated 06.06.2018 with effect from the said date as they did not attain the age of retirement.
3. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3007(S/S) of 2000. The said petition and other similarly petitions were dismissed by the coordinate Bench vide common judgment and order dated 04.07.2016. The petitioner and others filed Special Appeal No.369 of 2016, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2017 and the government order dated 14.12.2006 was set-aside whereby the petitioner and others' claim for absorption was rejected. The judgment passed by the coordinate Bench was also set-aside. The respondents - State authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and others for absorption in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. Thereafter, for non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the coordinate Bench, the petitioner filed Contempt No.2296 of 2017. On 31.10.2017, the contempt Court passed the following order:-
"Prima facie a Division Bench of this Court while deciding special appeal No. 369 of 2016 on 4.4.2017 has recorded a finding that the decision to wind up the Corporation in question was taken vide government order dated 28.10.1999 and a writ petition was filed by the petitioners herein for their absorption in the year 2000 itself wherein an order was passed on 25.5.2000 directing the State Government to consider their claim, thus, the process of absorption had already been initiated much before coming into force of the Recession Rules of 2003. The rejection of the petitioner's claim in pursuance to the earlier writ petition was put to challenge in Writ Petition No.7134 (SS) of 2006 which was dismissed against which the above mentioned appeal arose and was allowed on 4.4.2017. Moreover, the Court also finds that the parity claimed by the petitioners with Sriprakash Sharma was also considered by this Court, therefore, in these circumstances prima facie the order passed by the State Government on 31.7.2017 is in the teeth of the said judgment and in fact is a repetition of the earlier decision taken on 14.12.2006 which was quashed by this Court. If the State was aggrieved by the said judgment it could have challenged it, but not having done so it was not open to pass such an order which is prima facie in contempt of the judgment of this Court. In these circumstances it appears to be a case of deliberate and willful defiance of the said judgment.
Let the opposite party appear before this Court on 4.11.2017 and show cause as to why he be not proceeded under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971."
4. Against the said order passed by the contempt petition, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2140 of 2018 was filed and the Supreme Court vide order dated 07.02.2018 dismissed the said special leave to appeal, taking note of the fact that the petitioners were not claiming back-wages.
5. The contempt petition was finally dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2019, taking note of the fact that five other persons, who were writ-petitioners, had been absorbed from the date of issuance of the order dated 06.06.2018, however, in case of the petitioner, a separate order dated 21.08.2019 was passed and, it was said that the petitioner had already completed 60 years of age and he would have been superannuated when the order dated 06.06.2018 was passed, absorbing 5 others persons and, therefore, he could not be absorbed. However, while dismissing the contempt petition, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the competent Court/Forum against the order dated 21.08.2019.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner's claim for absorption was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2017 against which the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had undertaken before the Supreme Court by filing counter affidavit that he would not claim any back-wage. In view thereof, the right of absorption of the petitioner got cemented vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2017 passed by the Division Bench. However, the State did not make absorption of the petitioner and went to the Supreme Court against the order passed in the contempt petition and the special leave to appeal ultimately came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2018.
7. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have been absorbed with effect from 04.04.2017, however, since he had not worked, I am of the view that he should be paid half of the wages from 05.04.2017 to 06.07.2017. This payment of half of the back-wages should be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority.
8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this petition stands DISPOSED OF.
[D.K. SINGH, ]
Order Date :- 20.3.2023
MVS/-
