Fauja Ram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 425 MP

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH                          1
                         WP 16598 of 2020
                 Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

Gwalior, Dated :03/03/2021

         Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner.

         Shri GK Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondents/

State.

         Shri Sanjay Kumar, Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering

Department, Gwalior is present in person.

         This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

                 ''(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant
          the dues of salary of the petitioner as determined by the
          respondents authority in the light of Vide Annexure-p-1
          with 12% interest since the date of termination in the year
          1992.
                 (ii) That, Any other just and proper relief warranting
          under the facts and circumstances of the case including the
          cost of the litigation be also given to the petitioner, in the
          interest of justice.''

         It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on daily wages

by order dated 14/09/1982 and thereafter, he was appointed on the post

of Telephone Attendant by order dated 05/02/1988 and by order dated

10/07/1992, his services were terminated and accordingly, an application

under Sections 31, 61 and 62 of MP Industrial Relations Act was filed

thereby challenging his order of termination. The said application was

allowed by Labour Court No. 2, Gwalior by order dated 07/07/1998 with

a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as well as to pay

back wages within a period of 90 days.
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH                      2
                       WP 16598 of 2020
               Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

      Against the said order of Additional Presiding Officer, Labour

Court No.2, Gwalior, passed in Case No.456/MPIR/92, the respondents

preferred an appeal under Section 65 of MP Industrial Relations Act

which too was dismissed by order dated 25/09/2002 passed in Appeal

No.88/MPIR/98.

      Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, PHE, Bhind by its letter dated

26/12/2002 requested the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Gwalior that

in the light of the directions given by Labour Court as well as Industrial

Court, the entire back wages may be paid to the petitioner.

      Another letter dated 27/09/2003 was written by Executive

Engineer, PHE Department, Bhind to Chief Engineer, PHE Department,

Gwalior, however, no action was taken.

      Another letter dated 06/05/2005 was written by Executive

Engineer, PHE Department, Bhind to Chief Engineer, PHE Department,

Gwalior, however, no action was taken.

      On 30/05/2005, the Superintending Engineer, PHE Department,

Gwalior Division, Gwalior wrote a letter to Chief Engineer, PHE

Department, Gwalior Division, Gwalior requesting the compliance of

orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court, however, no action was

taken on the said letter.

      Thereafter, by letter dated 17/03/2008, Chief Engineer, PHE

Department, Gwalior Division, Gwalior wrote a letter to Engineer-in-
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH                       3
                      WP 16598 of 2020
              Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

Chief, PHE Department, Bhopal pointing out that the appeal filed by the

respondents has already been dismissed and as per opinion given by

Government Advocate, there is no likelihood of success in case if the

order of appeal is challenged and accordingly, allotment of Rs.3,25,000/-

was sought for payment of arrears of back wages.

      Thereafter, by letter dated 09/04/2008, Engineer-in-Chief, PHE

Department, Bhopal wrote a letter to Chief Engineer, PHE Department,

Gwalior to give a specific reason as to why the order of Appellate Court

cannot be challenged before the High Court and also sought an

explanation as to why the order of Appellate Court was not challenged

within the period of limitation and it was also observed that in most of

the cases    without assessing the possibilities      of success, the

recommendations are being sent for payment.

      Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Gwalior by his

letter dated 26/04/2008 wrote to Executive Engineer, PHE Department,

Bhind directed for seeking an opinion from the Government Advocate.

      Thereafter, the Government Advocate by his letter dated

16/05/2008 gave his opinion to Executive Engineer, PHE Department,

Bhind pointing out that the orders passed by Labour Court as well as

Industrial Court are proper and under these circumstances, it would be

appropriate to pay arrears of Rs.3,25,000/- to the employee. Accordingly,

Executive Engineer, PHE Department, Bhind by his letter dated
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH                           4
                       WP 16598 of 2020
               Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

28/05/2008 forwarded the matter to Chief Engineer, PHE Department,

Gwalior Division, Gwalior along with opinion of the Government

Advocate. Thereafter, nothing was done and accordingly, a legal notice

was sent on 22/08/2009 to Executive Engineer, PHE Department, Bhind.

      Another representation was made on 10/10/2010, however, it again

fell in deaf ears. Another representation was made on 28/05/2011 to

Executive Engineer, PHE Department, Bhind but no action was taken.

      Thereafter, on 07/09/2020, again representations were made to

Superintending Engineer, PHE Department, Gwalior, Chief Engineer,

PHE Department, Gwalior, Principal Secretary, PHE Department,

Bhopal, Engineer-in-Chief, PHE Department, Bhopal and Executive

Engineer, PHE Department, Bhind, but nothing was done.

      It is further submitted that the back wages were not paid, however,

the petitioner has retired from service on 19/04/2010 and accordingly,

PPO was also issued.

      This petition was filed on 22/10/2020. Thereafter, notices were

issued on 06/01/2021 with a specific stipulation that the petitioner is also

directed to explain the delay in detail. On 13/01/2021, the State Counsel

made a submission that the payment of salary is under process and,

therefore, he may be granted thirty days' time to file the return.

      On 15/02/2021, it was observed by this Court that the fruits of

litigation, where the claim for his salary had been adjudicated as back as
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH                                            5
                       WP 16598 of 2020
               Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

on 07/07/1998 by Labour Court No.2, Gwalior which was affirmed by

Industrial Court in 2002 itself, have not been received by the petitioner,

therefore, the State Counsel was directed to file the return positively

failing which Engineer-in-Chief, PHE Department, Bhopal and Chief

Engineer, PHE Department, Gwalior shall remain present personally

before this Court to explain their default.

      Thereafter, a short return was filed by the respondents and pleaded

as under:-

        ''2. That, with respect to the aforesaid, it is submitted by
      respondent that payment of salary of petitioner is under
      consideration, for which vide letter dated 27.1.2021, matter
      has been forwarded for consideration and the final decision
      is to be taken by Engineer-in-Chief. It is submitted that
      after the decision made by the Engineer-in-Chief, the
      payment may be released by Respondent No.1. Copy of
      letter dated 27.1.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as
      Annexure R/1. ''

      Alongwith this return, the note sheet of Chief Engineer, PHE

Department, Gwalior was also annexed as Annexure R/1 which reads as

under:-

             dk;kZy; izeq[k vfHk;Urk    i`"B dzekad -------------------------------

                                  yksd Lok- ;ka- foHkkx            'kk[kk
                                      ------------------------

fo"k; %& eku0 Je U;k;ky; Xokfy;j ds izdj.k dzekad [email protected] ,eihvkbZvkj (Qkstjke tkVo fo:) 'kklu ,oa vU; ) esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 07-7-1998 ds ifjikyu esa osru ,fj;j jkf'k dh Lohd``fr ckcrA lanHkZ%&1- eq[; vfHk;ark Xokfy;j dk i= dzekad 389 fnukad 21-1-21 (Nk;kifr layXu)

----0----

d``i;k lanfHkZr i= dk voyksdu djus dk d"V djsA 1& Jh Qkstjke tkVo dks fnukad 14-9-82 dks nsfud osru ij fu;qDr

WP 16598 of 2020 Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa fnukad 10-7-72 }kjk lsok ls i``Fkd fd;k x;k FkkA Jh Qkstjke tkVo }kjk iqu% lsok esa LFkkfir djus gsrq ek0Je U;k;ky; ds le{k iz0dz0 [email protected] ,eihvkbZvkj nk;j fd;k x;k] ftlds fu.kZ; fnukad 07-7-98 }kjk fuEukafdr vkns'k fn;k x;k%& ^^izkFkhZ dks mlds iwoZ in ij iqu%LFkkfir djsa ,oa 90 fnol ds vanj mldh lsok lekfIr dh fnukad ls leLr fiNyk osru Hkh vnk djsaA^^ 2& mDr fu.kZ; fnukad 07-7-1998 ds fo:) foHkkx }kjk ekuuh; vkS| ksfxd U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy dz0 [email protected] nk;j fd;k x;kA ftlds fu.kZ; fnukad 25-9-2002 }kjk fuEukafdr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k%& ^^mijksDr dkj.kksa ,oa foospu ds vk/kkj ij vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k oS/k o mfpr gS] rFkk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy dk okn O;; i{kdkj Lo;a ogu djsaxsA^^ 3& izdj.k esa ikfjr vkns'kksa ds laca/k esa Jh xtsUnz flag rksej 'kkldh; vf/koDrk }kjk fnukad 16-5-2008 dks vfHker fn;k x;k Fkk fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk deZpkjh dks iwoZ in ij LFkkfir djus ,oa leLr fiNyk osru vnk djus ds tks vkns'k fn;s x;s gSa og mfpr ,oa oS/k gSaA vr% mDr vkns'k ds ikyu esa deZpkjh dks fiNys osru ds ,fj;j :- 3]25]000-00 (:0 rhu yk[k iPphl gtkj ek=) fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA 4& Jh QkStjke tkVo (lsokfuo``Rr) dk;ZHkkfjr VsyhQksu vVs.Mj }kjk lsoklekfIr fnukad ls iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dh fnukad rd fiNys osru dh ,fj;j jkf'k :- 3]23]000-00 (:0 rhu yk[k iPphl gtkj ek=) dk 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr Hkqxrku djus gsrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [kaMihB Xokfy;j ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk dzekad [email protected] QkStjke fo:) e0iz0'kklu ,oa vU; nk;j fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 13-1-2021 dks lquokbZ dj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k] tks fuEukuqlkj gS%&

It is submitted by the counsel for the state that the proceeding for payment of salary is under process and, therefore, he may be granted thirty days' time to file the return.

Time granted. As prayed, list this th case no 15 February, 2021.

5& eq[; vfHk;ark Xokfy;j }kjk izdj.k esa ek0mPp U;k;ky; [kaMihB Xokfy;j ds ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 13-1-2021 ds ifjikyu esa v/kh{k.k ;a=h ,oa dk;Zikyu ;a=h [kaM fHkaM ds izLrkokuqlkj iwoZ esa ikfjr vkns'kksa ds ifjikyu gsrq fiNys osru ,sfj;j dh jkf'k :- 3]25]000-00 (:0 rhu yk[k iPphl gtkj ek=) dk vkoaVu Lohd``fr iznku djrs gq, dk;Zikyu ;a=h [kaM fHkaM dks Hkqxrku djus dh vuqefr vkxkeh lquokbZ fn- 15-2-2021 ds iwoZ nsus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA 6& bl dk;kZy; esa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj iwoZ esa bl dk;kZy; ds i= dz&3658 fn-9-4-2008] i= dz- 246 fn- 7-1-2011 i= d&575 fn-& 14-1- 2011 o i= dz- 3511 fn 25-4-11 (izfrfyfi layXu) }kjk izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fn0 25-9-2002 ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy D;ksa

WP 16598 of 2020 Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

ugha gks ldh dh tkudkjh o 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dk orZeku vfHker miyC/k djkus eq[; vfHk;ark Xokfy;j dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk] tks izkIr ugha gks lds ftlls dk;kZy; }kjk vkxkeh dk;Zokgh ugha tk ldhaA 7& ijh{k.k djus ij ;g ik;k x;k gS fd bl dk;kZy; ds iwoZ i=ksa dk dksbZ tokc izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj oknh }kjk dksbZ U;k;ky;hu dk;Zokgh ugha djus ds dkj.k fujarj :i ls ek-Je U;k;ky; ,oa ek0vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;ksa dh vuns[kh dh xbZ gSA U;k;ky;hu fu.kZ;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh fdlh Hkh Lrj ds dk;kZy; }kjk ugha dh xbZ tcfd dk;Zikyu ;a=h] v/kh{k.k ;a=h ,oa eq[; vfHk;ark lHkh dks fujarj U;k;ky;hu izdj.kksa dh le;c) leh{kk djus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSaA oknh }kjk iwoZ fu.kZ;ksa ds ikyu gsrq ekg vDVwcj 2020 esa ek0mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk nk;j dh xbZ rc Hkh bl izdj.k dks ugha ns[kk x;k rFkk fdlh rjg dk izLrko bl dk;kZy; dks izkIr ugha gqvkA mijksDrkuqlkj lHkh lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsodksa ds fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh izLrkfor dh tkrh gSA ;fn yafcr Hkqxrku ij dksbZ C;kt nsus dh fLFkfr mRiUu gksrh gS rks og jkf'k Hkh lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsodksa ls olwyh dh tkuh pkfg;sA 8& izdj.k esa vko';d x.kuk i=d orZeku esa vizkIr gSA izkir gksrs gh vkidh vksj Hksth tk;sxhA vr% eq[; vfHk;ark Xokfy;j dh vuq'kalk ,oa ikfjr vkns'kksa ds ifjikyu gsrq Jh Qkstjke tkVo dk;ZHkkfjr VsyhQksu vVsaMsV dks fiNys osru ,fj;j dh jkf'k : 3]25]000-00 (:0 rhu yk[k iPphl gtkj ek=) Hkqxrku djus dh rRdky Lohd``fr iznku djus dk d"V djsa rkfd vkxkeh lquokbZ fnukad 15-2-2021 ds iwoZ Hkqxrku laHko gks ldsA

layXu %& mijksDrkuqlkj izeq[k vfHk;ark

mi lfpo e0iz0'kklu

It is really surprising that a very short question was involved, that

why the respondents did not comply the orders of Labour Court as well

as Industrial Court and in reply to that, only short reply was filed

reserving the right to file a detailed and exhaustive return. Even in their

return, it was mentioned that the matter has been forwarded for

consideration and a final decision is to be taken by Engineer-in-Chief.

This Court by order dated 15/02/2021, had directed that in case if

the return is not filed, then respondent no.2 Engineer-in-Chief, PHE

WP 16598 of 2020 Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

Department, Bhopal and respondent no.3 Chief Engineer, PHE

Department, Gwalior shall remain present personally before this Court

but still the matter was taken in a most casual approach and respondent

no.3 by adopting a formality, wrote a letter to respondent no.2 and

shifted his responsibility on the shoulders of respondent no.2 by saying

that now the matter is in the court of respondent no.2 and the payment

shall be made after a final decision is taken by respondent no.2.

This Court by its order dated 15/02/2021 had directed the

respondents to file the return and that does not mean that the respondents

were right in shifting their responsibilities from one shoulder to another,

specifically when the claim of the petitioner which was already

adjudicated by Industrial Court in the year 2002 is still pending

compliance.

Be that whatever it may.

When the short reply submitted by the respondents was not found

to be sufficient compliance, respondent no.3 Chief Engineer, PHE

Department, Gwalior was directed to remain present before this Court on

01/03/2021 or to make the payment.

Accordingly, today, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Chief Engineer, PHE

Department, Gwalior is present in person before this Court and submitted

that by order dated 02/03/2021, an amount of Rs.1,88,651/- has been

approved and accordingly, the payment has been made in the account of

WP 16598 of 2020 Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

the petitioner.

When the attention of Shri Sanjay Kumar, Chief Engineer, PHE

Department, Gwalior was drawn to his own note sheet/letter dated

27/01/2021 which was filed along with short return, then it was replied

that in fact, an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- was mentioned on the basis of

letter dated 17/03/2008 (Annexure P6) written by Chief Engineer, PHE

Department, Gwalior. He fairly conceded that the short return was filed

in a casual manner, however, it is submitted by Shr Sanjay Kumar that

now, after calculating the arrears, it is found that the petitioner is entitled

for arrears of Rs.1,88,651/- without interest.

This submission made by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Chief Engineer, PHE

Department, Gwalior itself shows the casual and hostile attitude of the

authorities towards their own employees as well as towards the orders of

Tribunals. Unfortunately, the respondents also adopted a very casual

attitude towards this Court by filing a short return pleading that the

matter has been forwarded to Engineer-in-Chief and now it is for him to

take a final decision. Further, according to Chief Engineer amount of

Rs.3,25,000/- which was mentioned in the note sheet attached along with

the short return was also mentioned without doing any homework.

Be that as it may.

When Shri Sanjay Kumar was directed to point out the calculation

on the basis of which an amount of Rs.1,88,651/- has been found to be

WP 16598 of 2020 Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

outstanding, then he kept quite and could not satisfy this Court as to how

this amount of Rs.1,88,651/- has been calculated.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion

that as Shri Sanjay Kumar has not disowned his note sheet filed along

with short return as well as has also not pointed out that the letter dated

17/03/2008 (Annexure P6) written by Chief Engineer, PHE Department,

Gwalior to Engineer-in-Chief, PHE Department, Bhopal was incorrect,

therefore, the contention of the respondents that the amount of

Rs.1,88,651/- has been paid, cannot be said to be a complete compliance

of the orders of Industrial Court as well as Labour Court.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the following

directions:-

(i) The respondents are directed to pay the entire amount of

Rs.3,25,000/- as assessed by Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Gwalior

in its letter dated 17/03/2008 (Annexure P6) addressed to Engineer-in-

Chief, PHE Department, Bhopal as well as the note sheet written by

present Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Gwalior, namely, Shri Sanjay

Kumar which has been filed along-with the short return.

(ii) Since the respondents have not given any explanation as to

why they did not make payment of back wages as directed by Industrial

Court, therefore, it is held that the petitioner is also entitled for interest.

(iii) From the documents, it is clear that the intra-Department

WP 16598 of 2020 Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

communication continued till 28/05/2008 and thereafter, the Department

sat idle on the question of compliance of orders of Industrial Court as

well as Labour Court. The legal notice was sent by the petitioner on

22/08/2009. Thereafter, the petitioner also sent various successive

representations but it is well-established principle of law that the

successive representations would not extend the period of limitation. The

limitation for recovery of salary is three years. However, the respondents

in their short return did not raise any question of limitation, but on the

contrary, they admitted their liability and have also made payment to the

petitioner.

(iv) Under these circumstances, it is held that the petitioner shall

be entitled for interest from the date of judgment passed by Labour Court

i.e. 07/07/1998 (date of judgment by Labour Court) till 21/08/2012 [three

years from the date of legal notice dated 22/08/2009 (Annexure P7)].

(v) Since the respondents have not given any explanation much

less sufficient explanation for not complying the orders of Labour Court

as well as Industrial Court, therefore, it is directed that the petitioner

shall be entitled for interest @ 6 % per annum.

(vi) The State of Madhya Pardesh is directed to recover the interest

component from the salary/pension of Chief Engineer, PHE Department,

Gwalior as well as Engineer-in-Chief, PHE Department, Bhopal posted

from the year 2002 on-wards in equal proportion after fixing their

WP 16598 of 2020 Fauja Ram Vs. State of MP and Ors.

liabilities.

(vii) Let the entire arrears be paid within a period of two months

from today failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @

6% per annum till the actual payment is made.

With aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge

MKB

MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2021.03.08 17:56:06 +05'30'