Chattisgarh High Court
Premlata Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 3179 of 2022
1. Premlata Shukla W/o Late Ashok Kumar Shukla Aged About 74 Years R/o
Bhawan 27/63, New Shanti Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 30, PS Civil
Line, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Higher Education,
Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. President Durga Education Society, Durga Mahavidyalaya Campus,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Durga Mahavidyalaya Campus, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Commissioner Department of Higher Education, Non-Government
Collegiate Wing, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Amrito Das, Addl. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
05.05.2022
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the
following reliefs:
"10.1. Hold that action on the part of the respondent
authorities in not extending the benefits of the age of
superannuation to the original petitioner Dr. Ashok Kumar
Shukla as 62 years in place of 60 years is bad in law.
10.2. This Hon'ble court is humbly prayed to extend the
benefit of 62 years with all consequential benefits and other
fringe benefits which the original petitioner lawfully entitled
along with the benefit of revision of pay as has been
extended to the petitioner in the light of para 19 & 20 of the
order dated 05.03.2019 passed in WP No.2318 of 2002 and
also in the light of the judgment dated 24.10.2019 passed in
WA No.224 of 2019.
It is further prayed to direct the respondents to pay principal
amount along with 18 percent interest from the date of
entitlement till the actual payment made which original
petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate right of salary
i.e. from 31.10.2001 to 31.10.2002 with a direction to
recalculate and extend the pension and other fringe benefit.
10.3. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleaded to hold that
Annexure P/10 i.e. impugned order 18.08.2007 is arbitrary,
capricious and illegal in the eyes of law particularly fraud
being committed asserting receiving the copy of amendment
dated 13.07.2001 on 03.10.2006, but same is per contra to
actual receiving i.e. 20.07.2001, Annexure P/11, and
accordingly impugned order dated 18.08.2007 is liable to be
set aside on the basis of well settled maxim i.e. fraud and
justice never dwell together.
10.4. That, the entire records of the case may kindly be
called for elucidation of the facts of the case.
10.5. That, looking to the subterfuge being adopted by the
erring respondents, heavy cost amounting Rs.10,00,000/-
may kindly be imposed upon them."
2. The primary grievance of the petitioner seems to be the non granting of
monetary benefits for the period between 03.10.2000 to 30.10.2002 i.e.
the period during which the Husband of the petitioner had discharged the
duties under the respondent No.2 on the post of Lecturer/Principal.
3. The dispute arose on account of non granting of the benefit of the
enhanced age of retirement to the Husband of the petitioner while he was
working under Durga Education Society, Raipur.
4. The Husband of the petitioner had filed a writ petition i.e. WP No.3 of
2000. Initially he was granted an interim protection on 06.11.2000 which
the High Court granted an interim relief to the Husband of the petitioner so
far as the age of retirement is concerned and it was observed as under:
"Effect and operation of Annexure P/5 shall remain stayed
until further orders from this court. If the petitioner has not yet
been relieved from his office, he shall be allowed to work on
the post already held by him. It, however, does not mean that
if the petitioner stands relieved before grant of this order,
then his status shall stand restored."
5. Pursuant to the interim order by this court, the petitioner's Husband was
taken back in service and he continued to discharge his duties. The said
writ petition WP No.3 of 2000 came up for hearing again before the High
Court on 31.08.2001 when after hearing all the parties, the interim order
granted on 06.11.2000 stood vacated. For ready reference, the
observation of the High Court while vacating the stay order is also
reproduced hereinunder:
"Heard all parties.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case and the material on record as has been noted in the
order dated 25.07.2001, the interim order passed in WP
No.5074/2000, so also passed in WP No.3/2000 in favour of
Dr. Ashok Shukla is vacated, as these orders have been
obtained by suppressing material facts and playing fraud on
the court.
Shri Ashok Shukla's counsel has filed reply. He does not
want to file additional reply."
6. The writ petition finally came up for hearing on 22.02.2007 and the writ
petition stood dismissed as having become infructuous reserving the right
of the petitioner to approach the respondents for claiming any monetary
claim for the period during which he was prevented to discharge his duties.
For ready reference, the observations of the court while dismissing the
petition as having become infructuous, is reproduced hereinunder:
"7. In our view, in view of the efflux of time, the relief sought
for by the petitioner would not survive for consideration of
this Court, therefore, the petition requires to be disposed of
as having become infructuous. However, liberty requires to
be granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent
authorities for payment of salary during the period he worked
in the respondent College. Accordingly, the following :
Order
(i) The petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an
appropriate representation before the first respondent for
payment of salary during the period he was prevented from
discharging his functions as a Principal of the Institution.
(ii) If and when such a representation is made, the first
respondent is directed to consider the same and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."
7. Given the fact that the Division Bench of this High Court had dismissed the
writ petition as having become infructuous, having not been challenged
any further, the fate of the claim of the petitioner's Husband stood finalized
for all times to come. The said order was passed on 22.02.2007. The
Husband of the petitioner thereafter was alive up till 08.01.2022.
Meanwhile, the Husband of the petitioner never raised any claim, nor has
he knocked the doors of any court of law ventilating his grievances. Now
after the death of the Husband of the petitioner, his wife, the petitioner
herein has filed the present writ petition claiming for the reliefs which have
been reproduced in the preceding paragraph.
8. In the light of the order of the Division Bench while vacating the interim
order granted in favour of the Husband of the petitioner in WP No.3 of
2000 dated 31.08.2001 reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, as also
the observations of the Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition of
the petitioner itself as having become infructuous, this court does not find
any strong case made out by the petitioner for reviving the claim at this
juncture.
9. The writ petition thus being totally bereft of merit deserves to be and is
accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
inder
