Parsuram Chaudhari vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7066 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Parsuram Chaudhari vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. ... on 21 May, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30295
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5330 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Parsuram Chaudhari
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunication Ministry Communications New Delhi And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Yadava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Nidhi Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and Ms. Nidhi Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 & 3.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to implement the judgement and order dated 01.05.2025 passed in Writ Petition Writ A No.3212 of 2023' Parsuram Chaudhari vs. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Telecommunication Ministry Communication New Delhi and 2 others."

3. At the very outset, Ms. Nidhi Singh has raised objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition by submitting that the petitioner has filed one writ petition bearing Writ-A No. 3212 of 2023 seeking same relief, which has been decided vide order dated 01.05.2023, which reads as under:

"Heard Sri Saurabh Yadava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Ms. Baby Singh,Advocate holding brief of Sri S.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to the respondent no.2 is dispensed with.

The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the retiral dues which are admitted vide a information/statement (Annexure No.3) provided by the respondent no.3 i.e, total amount Rs.15,73,887/- i.e. Rs.2,47,451/-(Rs.3,23,417/- plus Rs.24,034/- minus Rs. 1,00,000/-) in respect of Privileged Leave Encashment, Rs.3,40,330/- in respect of Provident Fund as on 19.04.2023 and Rs.9,86,106/- alongwith interest of 18% per annum for delayed payment."

The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that despite admission as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the amounts have not been paid to the petitioner.

Considering the submission advanced and perusing the documents on record, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.3 to ensure the payment of the admitted dues to the petitioner along with interest @ Rs.7% per annum from the due date till actual payment/ realisation, within a period of six weeks from the date of approaching and filing a certified copy of this order before the respondent no.3."

4. When the substantial compliance has not been done by the opposite parties, the petitioner filed a contempt application before this Court as reference thereof has been given in para-5, which is Contempt Application No.2229 of 2023. The aforesaid contempt application is still pending consideration. Ms. Nidhi Singh has stated that the part compliance has been done.

5. Disputing the aforesaid contention of Ms. Nidhi Singh, Sri Saurabh Yadav has stated that the contempt jurisdiction is meant for punishing comtemnor if the order of writ court has not been complied with, but in a writ court the petitioner may seek substantial justice. He has also submitted that the Larger Bench of this Court has held that if for the same relief which has been prayed by the litigant and the compliance thereof has not been done, he may not be left remedyless, therefore, he may again approach the writ court. Sri Yadav has referred para 35 of the judgement and order of Full Bench dated 16.08.2022.

6. Ms. Nidhi Singh, has further submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case would not be covered with the judgment of Full Bench inasmuch as the present petitioner has not been left remedy-less as he has already approached the contempt court wherein the contempt application is pending consideration, therefore, the petitioner may not adopt simultaneous proceedings in respect of the same subject matter. She has also drawn attention of this Court towards the judgement and order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.8870 of 2020; Prayas Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., wherein almost similar controversy has been adjudicated by the Division Bench dismissing the writ petition. The order dated 29.08.2022 reads as under:-

"Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the L.D.A. has brought to our notice the Full Bench decision which has answered the reference made to it in this very case. He has ably assisted us and taken us through the Full Bench decision and has submitted that in view of the questions already answered, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

This petition was heard earlier, however, the Hon'ble Judges had expressed differing opinions on the relevant issues. Accordingly, the matter was referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for deciding the questions referred. We have perused the reference order. We have also perused the opinion of the Full Bench on the questions referred to it. The questions referred were as under:-

2. The issues, on which the opinion is sought, are as under:

"i) Whether the subsequent Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020 filed by the petitioner after final judgment dated 17.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009 is an abuse of process of the Court, as before filing the Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020, the petitioner has filed Civil Misc. Application No. 87559 of 2019 for further direction and issuance of certificate for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 134 of the Constitution and during the pendency of the said application, the present writ petition has been filed?

ii) Whether the second Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020 filed by the petitioner is maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is seeking implementation of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009? and,

iii) Whether the second Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020 is barred by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata in view of the fact that while allowing Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009 vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2019, the respondents have been directed to process the application of the petitioner for conversion of lease-hold-rights into free-hold, in accordance with law laid down by the Full Bench in Anand Kumar Sharma's case (supra) and, thus, the issue regarding the relevant date for conversion charges was very much involved in Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009?"

The answers to the said questions by the Full Bench were as under:-

"ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

46. Question No.I is answered in positive holding that filing of the present writ petition was an abuse of process of Court.

Question No.II - Though a writ petition can be entertained for execution of an order passed earlier by the Court, however, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case was not maintainable.

Question No.III is answered in positive holding that present writ petition filed by the petitioner was barred by principles of res judicata/ constructive res judicata. "

The Full Bench has already held that this petition filed by the petitioner is barred by principles of res judicata / constructive res judicata. It has also been held that filing of this petition is an abuse of the process of court. The Full Bench has further held that though a writ petition can be entertained for execution of an order passed earlier by the Court, however, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case was not maintainable.

In view of the reasons already given by the Full Bench decision, this petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason aforesaid.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since the fact is admitted at the bar that this is second writ petition for redressal of the grievance for which one writ petition was filed by the petitioner, which has been decided on 01.05.2023 and contempt application is pending consideration before this Court, therefore, the judgement of Full Bench would not be applicable in the present case and I am in agreement with the observation of Division Bench in re: Prayas Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 21.5.2025

Reena/-

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)