Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Paul Sharma vs U H B V N Ltd. And Ors on 19 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039333
CWP-1540-2008 1 2024:PHHC:039333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
208 CWP-1540-2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision:19.03.2024
Joginder Paul Sharma
.......Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr.Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anupama Sharma, Advocate for respondents-Nigam.
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
*****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari
for quashing of order dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure P-15) wherein the
request of the petitioner for his consequential benefits at the prevailing
rates as ordered by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.1942 of 2004 decided on
26.05.2005 (Annexure P-10) has been declined.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 21.03.1966
and thereafter was promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk on
13.07.1990 and as Assistant on 23.10.1973. However, on 09.12.1981, the
petitioner was suspended from service and thereafter an FIR No.1015 under
Sections 409/477-A/120-B of IPC was lodged against the petitioner on
18.12.1981 and subsequently departmental proceedings were also initiated
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039333
CWP-1540-2008 2 2024:PHHC:039333
against him and the petitioner was removed from service on 11.11.1998.
He further submitted that he had challenged the aforesaid removal order by
filing a writ petition bearing No.2342 of 1999 and the order of removal was
quashed by passing a detailed order and the petitioner was ordered to be
taken back into the service and it was also directed that the petitioner will
not be granted any back wages because he had not worked on the post.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition i.e.CWP No.1942 of
2004 before this Court by challenging the order dated 13.03.2003
(Annexure P-7) passed by the respondents-Nigam, wherein it was directed
that the period from 11.11.1998 till 30.11.2001 will not be treated as a duty
period for the purpose of annual increments and the same was also allowed
by a Division Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-10 on 26.05.2005. The
relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
It is apparent from the narration of the facts above that
the order of dismissal of his appeal against the aforesaid order
was set aside by this court in his earlier writ petition No.2342 of
1999, which was allowed on January 3, 2002. Accordingly, the
respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner. The
petitioner was, however, held not entitled to backwages for the
reasons that he had not worked on the aforesaid post from the
date of his removal till the allowing of his writ petition. In these
circumstances, the respondents had absolutely no justification to
treat the aforesaid entire period as a period of extra-ordinary
leave. Once the claim of the petitioner for backwages had been
declined by this Court, then the petitioner, in any case, was
entitled to other reliefs. The intention of the rule is also clear.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039333
CWP-1540-2008 3 2024:PHHC:039333
Accordingly, we allow the present writ petition and
while quashing the orders Annexures P-8 and P-12, we direct the
period in controversy, as noticed above, would be treated as a
period spent by the petitioner on duty. The petitioner shall also
be entitled to the other consequential benefits, except the arrears
of his salary, as are admissible to him in accordance with law.
Let the necessary directions be issued in this regard within a
period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order
is received."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in this
way the petitioner at the most was not entitled to the arrears of salary but he
is entitled to all the other benefits including House Rent Allowance,
Dearness Allowance and other allowances especially for the purpose of
fixation of the pensionary benefits on the basis of notional fixation of pay.
He further submitted that, however, the respondents have not granted any
of the benefits and at the most they would have denied the arrears of salary
in pursuance of the aforesaid Division Bench judgement. He further
submitted that the only reason which has come out from the reply filed by
the respondents is that the aforesaid benefits are part of the salary and
therefore, the petitioner has been denied for the same benefits. He further
submitted that first of all the HRA is not a part of the salary and assumingly
it is a part of the salary then notional fixation of pay has to be done because
the only benefit which can be denied to the petitioner in pursuance of the
aforesaid Division Bench judgement was the arrears of salary and nothing
else.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that apart
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039333
CWP-1540-2008 4 2024:PHHC:039333
from the above, the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court on 26.05.2005 vide Annexure P-10 and it was directed that the
necessary directions be carried on within a period of four months but some
of the benefits were released to the petitioner after a delay of about 26
months from which the petitioner is also entitled for interest in this regard.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the respondents-Nigam has complied with the directions issued by the
aforesaid Division Bench.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. A perusal of the reply which has been filed by the respondents
does not give any bifurcation of how much amount was paid and in what
manner the aforesaid order/directions of Division Bench of this Court have
been implemented.
8. In view of the the aforesaid, this Court deems it fit and proper to
issue appropriate directions to the Managing Director of respondents-
Nigam, to take a conscious decision by passing a speaking order after
affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or his counsel
pertaining to the aforesaid grievances raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. In the aforesaid order, the Managing Director of the
respondents-Nigam will not only consider as to how, the benefit which is
sought by the petitioner, is a part of the salary or not and even if
assumingly it is a part of the salary then whether it should be considered for
the purpose of notional fixation of pensionary benefits or not. The
Managing Director will also pass a well reasoned speaking order as to why
the petitioner should not be granted the interest on the delayed payment of
what he has been given after the passing of the order by Division Bench
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039333
CWP-1540-2008 5 2024:PHHC:039333
judgment at Annexure P-10.
9. Let the necessary exercise be carried out by the Managing
Director of respondents-Nigam within a period of three months from today
after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or his
counsel.
10. It is expected that the Managing Director of the respondents-
Nigam will make application of mind and pass a well reasoned speaking
order in accordance with law.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
19.03.2024
shweta
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
