Allahabad High Court
Amar Nath Dwivedi vs Union Of India Through Secretary, ... on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:63335
Reserved
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8096 of 2022
Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dwivedi
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Epfo, New Delhi And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Anupriya Srivastava,C.S.C.,Kaushlendra Yadav,Shobhit Mohan Shukla
With
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7557 of 2022
Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dwivedi
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Sccretary, Labour Minisry, Employee Provident Fund Organisation And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,C.S.C.,Neeraj Chaurasiya,Shobhit Mohan Shukla
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard the petitioner Sri Amar Nath Dwivedi, who appears in person; Sri P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Union of India; Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3; Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kaushlendra Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4; Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent o.5 and Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent no.6.
2. Both the petitions relates to the same petitioner and are being decided by means of this common order.
3. The facts in brief as reproduced in Special Appeal No.320 of 2022, decided on 19.10.2022 are that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited (in short 'the Corporation') by means of an order dated 07.09.1998 and the contractual appointment of the petitioner was from 25.09.1998 to 24.09.1999. The petitioner joined the said Corporation on 25.09.1998 at Kanpur and was subsequently transferred to Amroha. Thereafter, after expiry of the term of contractual appointment, the services of the petitioner stood terminated, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed, vide order dated 17.01.2002. The petitioner challenged the said order in special appeal before a Division Bench, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back. After remand, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 16.07.2002, however, the said order was challenged by the Corporation in Special Appeal, which was dismissed on 08.08.2006. Against the order dated 08.08.2006 passed in Special Appeal, an SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.5491 of 2007 and was ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.03.2017 and by the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed the order dated 08.08.2006 passed by the Special Appellate Court.
4. On passing of the abovesaid order dated 02.03.2017 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the lis raised by the petitioner in respect of his employment in the Corporation stood concluded. Thereafter, the petitioner claimed the benefit of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3652 of 2017 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given certain directions for grant of protection to the employees, who were working on deputation and were belonging to the public sector undertaking. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal No.3652 of 2017, vide order dated 02.03.2017, thus, the claim of absorption also stood concluded by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.03.2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner that he was a permanent employee of the Corporation and in that capacity, who was sent on deputation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that his entitlement of absorption as claimed by him cannot be sustained.
5. Along with Civil Appeal No.5491 of 2007 and Civil Appeal No.3652 of 2017, another civil appeal, namely, Civil Appeal No.3653 of 2017, which had arisen out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.1078 of 2015, was also decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same day, i.e., on 2.3.207 and the order challenged in the said Civil Appeal was set aside. Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, while allowing the Civil Appeal No.3653 of 2017 has made the following observations:-
"It may, however, be noted that even though we have held that respondent-Amar Nath Dwivedi has no locus to claim employment under the State, the State is not debarred from engaging services of respondent, if the State is so advised, on such terms and conditions, as may be found to be appropriate in accordance with law. We do not express any opinion on future course of action which State of Uttar Pradesh may adopt."
6. After the aforesaid decision, the petitioner preferred other petitions before this Court being Writ-A No.21517 of 2019, Writ-A No.2001629 of 2013, 2000200 of 2014 and Writ-A No.17420 of 2016 before this Court, wherein the foundation of the claim of the petitioner was that he was absorbed by the State Government. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions mainly on the ground that the issued has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order was passed by the learned Single Judge in all the writ petition on 11.05.2022, against which, the special appeal was preferred by the petitioner being Special Appeal No.320 of 2022. The Special Appeal Court after recording the averments dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. After the decision of the Special Appeal Court dated 19.10.2022 passed in Special Appeal No.320 of 2022, one of the present petitions being Writ-A No.7557 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner claiming the benefit of salary for the period 01.07.2019 to 25.07.2019 and the benefit of earned leave on the foundation of a relieving order passed on 01.07.2019. The petitioner has also claimed the benefit of interest on the provident fund for the period, the same was not sent to the Employee Provident Fund Association. The petitioner has also claimed various dues as elaborated in 22 to 43 of the writ petition. In Writ-A No.8096 of 2022, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus for issuance of a repatriation order and for payment of salary against the parental department since 25.07.2022. The petitioner has also claimed the benefit of gratuity and his EPF contribution till the passing of the repatriation order and has also prays for grant of Last Pay Certificate to be issued on the repatriation order.
8. When the matter was heard, this Court had offered the petitioner that he may be granted the benefit of availing the services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, in case he so desires. The said offer was refused by the petitioner preferring to argue the matter in person. The petitioner has also submitted written submissions mentioning the observations made in Special Appeal No.320 of 2022. The said submission of the Counsel for the petitioner merits outright rejection, inasmuch as, the Supreme Court had clearly determined the rights of the petitioner and the entitlement of the petitioner to be absorbed by the State Government was also repelled by the Special Appeal Court in its detailed judgment passed on 19.10.2022.
9. Once the contention and the rights of the petitioner stand concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the judgment dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Special Appeal Court passed in Special Appeal No.320 of 2022, the present petitions which essentially are founded on similar grounds merits outright rejection. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petitions would be dependant on the rights of the petitioner of his valid absorption by the State Government, which issue has already been decided.
10. Subsequent writ petitions, claiming reliefs, which are founded on the same issue, are barred by the principle of constructive res judicata as well as the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted.
11. For the reasons recorded above, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Order Dated: 03.10.2023
akverma (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
