Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Smita Moghe vs Shri Akash Tripathi on 9 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
CONC No.1002 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SMITA MOGHE W/O LATE SHRI UDAY MOGHE, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, SAIKRIPA COLONY NEAR BOMBAY HOSPITAL, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE)
AND
1. SHRI AKASH TRIPATHI S/O NOT MENTION OCCUPATION: MANAGING
DIRECTOR, MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
COMPANY LTD. POLOGROUND, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI GAJARA MEHTA OCCUPATION: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF ENGINEER (INDORE REGION) MADHYA PRADESH PAKSHIM
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. ,POLOGROUND, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MADHUSUDAN DWIVEDI, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the Apex
Court has settled the controversy between the parties by disposing of the
SLP No.31275/2018 vide order dated 05/01/2023. The operative order is
reproduced below:-
"The husband of the respondent (Late Sh. Uday
Moghe) joined the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board
as an Assistant Engineer in the year 1986, The Board
was bifercated in the year 2003 and three power
distribution companies including the Petitioner-
Company came into existence as substitute of the
Board. The husband of the respondent was allocated to
the Petitioner- Company. He was placed under
suspension in the year 2010 for an alleged misconduct,
followed by departmental enquiry. It further appears
that the husband of the respondent was served with a
show cause notice for imposition of major penalty but
he did not participate in the proceedings. A criminal
case was also registered against the husband of the
respondent, besides the allegation that he used to defy
the instructions and orders of the senior officers. As a
cumulative effect of all the allegations which were
slatedly proved in the departmental enquiry, the
husband of the respondent was dismissed from service
on 18.01.2013. Unfortunately, the husband of the
respondent (Sh. Uday Moghe) died soon thereafter on
28th April, 2013. The respondent- the wife of the
deceased, then filed a departmental appeal on
11.05.2013 against the order of dismissal of the
services of her late husband before the Competent
Authority. The appeal was turned down on the ground
that the same was not maintenable at the instance of
the respondent- wife.
Such an action came to be challenged by the
respondent before the High Court by way of a writ
petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ
Petition on 09.02.2017 and held that there was no
cogent evidence on record to establish the charges
levelled against the husband of the respondent. The
respondent was thus held to be entitled to all the
consequential benefits including the arrears of pay etc.
of her deceased husband.
The petitioner Corporation preferred a writ
appeal but that has also been turned down by a
Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned
judgment and order dated 12.12.2017.
When the special leave petition came up for
hearing before the Coordinate Bench of this court on
19.11.2018 notice was issued on the limited question
of back wages.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties for
a considerable length and gone through the relevant
record through their assistance. It is pointed out by
learned counsel for the petitioner--Corporation that
over a sum of Rs.57,00,000/- has been paid to the
respondent towards various service benefits like
Gratuity, Provident Fund, back wages etc. |
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent
states that the deceased was paid Subsistence.
Allowance initially at the rate of 60% which was laterâ
on revised upto 90% and the balance amount of arrears
of pay has not been paid so far.
Having considered the rival submission, we are
satisfied that the deceased husband of the respondent
was not entitled to be paid more than the Subsistence
Allowance during the period he remained under
suspension, for the reason that eventually the charges
were proved against him in the enquiry. Though the
learned Single Judge has exonerated the deceased
employee but taking into consideration all the
attending circumstances, it appears to us that the ends
of justice would be adequately met with by directing
that nothing more shall be payable by the petitioner--
Corporation to the respondent towards the service
benefits of the deceased husband. Similarly, no
recovery s
hall be affected from the respondent out of
the amounts which have already been released in her
favour.
The special leave petition is accordingly
disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
It is clear from the aforesaid order that all the benefits payable to the
petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the Writ Court has been
satisfied by paying a sum of Rs.57,00,000/- and no further recovery from
the petitioner.
In view of the above, nothing survives in this contempt petition. The
same is hereby dismissed.
Rule nisi stands discharged.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
vs
Digitally signed by
VARSHA SINGH
Date: 2023.02.10 15:58:34
+05'30'
