Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Prasad vs The General Manager (Personnel) on 9 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4054 of 2016
WITH
I.A. No.7059 of 2019
----
Jagdish Prasad ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The General Manager (Personnel), Food Corporation of India, Headquarter,
16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager (Region), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
New Collectorate Building, Block A, 4th Floor, Kutchery Road, Ranchi.
3. The Asstt. General Manager (Pers.) Food Corporation of India, New
Collectorate Building, Block A, 4th Floor, Kutchary Road, Ranchi.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, New Collectorate Building,
Block A, 4th Floor, Kutchary Road, Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
----
7/ 09.08.2021 I.A. No. 7059 of 2019
By filing this interlocutory application, petitioner seeks to amend
the writ petition by challenging the decision dated 26.04.2018, whereby the
petitioner has been granted notional promotion. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was implicated as an accused in a criminal case
being R.C. 14(A) of 1994 - Special Case No.10 of 1994. He submits that as
the petitioner was an accused in the aforesaid case, his promotion was not
granted. He submits that, ultimately, vide judgment dated 4th April, 2016,
petitioner was acquitted. It is submitted that the petitioner superannuated in
the year 2008, during pendency of the criminal case, thus, his promotion was
not considered. He submits that once the petitioner has been acquitted, his
claim for promotion was considered and it was decided to give him notional
promotion. He submits that he is dissatisfied with the grant of notional
promotion and the order needs to be challenged.
Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
submits that the case of the petitioner was considered and he was promoted
notionally with effect from 30.09.2005, that is from the date when his next
junior Sarfaraz Khan was promoted. He submits that there is no illegality in the
order. He submits that notional promotion was granted as the petitioner stood
superannuated on the date when promotion was granted and in fact, the
petitioner was an accused in a criminal case when his next junior was granted
promotion. He submits that considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner was
notionally promoted with effect from 30.09.2005.
I have heard the counsel for the parties. In the main writ petition,
petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 30.03.2016, whereby his
claim for grant of interest on leave encashment was rejected. He also prayed
for notional promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager from the date
when his junior was promoted. He also prayed for increment on the said
promoted post. So far as the main prayer of the petitioner is concerned,
petitioner has already been granted notional promotion to the post of Assistant
General Manager, notionally with effect from 30.09.2005, i.e., the date when
his immediate junior was promoted. Thus, the prayer that has been made by
filing this interlocutory application, by the petitioner is not coherent with the
main writ petition. This is a new claim, which the petitioner is claiming.
Allowing the interlocutory application will change the entire nature of the writ
petition. Thus, I am not inclined to allow this interlocutory application. If the
petitioner wants to claim the monetary benefits, he will be at liberty to do so by
filing a fresh writ petition.
This interlocutory application is, accordingly, rejected.
W.P.(S) No. 4054 of 2016
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents through Video Conferencing. The lawyers
have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through
Video Conferencing today at 10.30 a.m. They have no complain in respect to
the audio and video clarity and quality.
In this writ petition, the only issue, which remains, is in respect of
challenge made by the petitioner to the order dated 30.03.2016, i.e., Annexure
5 to the writ petition, whereby prayer of the petitioner for interest on the
amount of leave encashment has been rejected. It is submitted that leave
encashment amount was paid much belatedly, i.e., after the order was passed
by this Court in W.P.(S) No.692 of 2011. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner superannuated in the year 2008 and his leave encashment
has been paid in July 2011, thus, he is entitled to get interest. He submits that
he has filed representation before the respondents, but, the same was rejected
by the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to receive
interest on the delayed payment.
Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that after the petitioner had approached this Court, vide order dated
13.07.2011, passed in W.P.(S) No.692 of 2011, an interim order was passed
directing the respondents to pay the leave encashment amount to the
petitioner. Complying the said order, the amount of leave encashment was
paid to the petitioner. He submits that at that relevant time, petitioner was
facing a criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, thus, his leave
encashment was not paid. Only after the order was passed by this Court, in
compliance, the amount of leave encashment was paid to the petitioner. He
submits that the writ petition, being W.P.(S) No.692 of 2011, was, ultimately,
disposed of on 12.06.2013, wherein direction was given to pay the gratuity
amount along with statutory interest, but, no order was passed to pay any
interest on the amount of leave encashment, which was paid by virtue of the
earlier order. He submits that there was no order to pay interest on the
delayed payment of earned leave amount, thus, the respondents were well
within their jurisdiction to deny interest.
From the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, I find that
the petitioner was an accused in respect of a criminal case under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, which was instituted in the year 1994. The
petitioner superannuated facing the trial in the year 2008. Since the trial was
pending, the retiral benefits including the gratuity and leave encashment was
not paid to the petitioner. Petitioner had approached this Court by filing
W.P.(S) No. 692 of 2011, wherein, on 13.07.2011, an interim order was
passed directing the respondents to pay the leave encashment amount to the
petitioner. In compliance of the aforesaid order, leave encashment amount
was paid to the petitioner. Again vide order dated 12.06.2013, the writ petition
was finally allowed and the respondents were directed to pay the gratuity
amount along with interest. The interim order to pay the leave encashment
amount, thereby, merged with the final order. In the final order, there was no
direction to pay any interest on the leave encashment amount. There is
nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever claimed interest over the
amount of leave encashment. Considering the aforesaid fact, the respondents,
by order dated 30.03.2016 rejected the prayer to pay interest. I find no illegality
in the impugned order.
In respect of the prayer made by the petitioner wherein he claimed
increment on the promoted post, it is made clear that it will be open to the
petitioner to pray for the same in a separate writ petition, if the petitioner so
files challenging the order of his notional promotion.
This writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
