Basant Kumar Singh vs The Instrumentation Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 11 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Basant Kumar Singh vs The Instrumentation Ltd on 4 January, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                        (1 of 3)                                   [CW-4615/2018]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4615/2018

Basant Kumar Singh
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
The Instrumentation Ltd
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)        :     Dr. Saugath Roy
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. N.K.Maloo, Sr. Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

04/01/2021 An application has been moved by the petitioner stating that

the case of the petitioner stands covered by the judgments passed

by this Court in SBCWP No.14505/2015 tilted as A.K.Jain Vs.

Kota Instrumentation ltd. decided on 15.11.2017 as well as

SBCWP No. 19554/2017 titled as Rajeev Kumar Versus The

Instrumentation Limited, Kota decided on 9.9.2019 and prays

for deciding the present case on the basis of identical case

decided.

The application is not contested by the counsel for the

respondents and the same is accordingly allowed.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is also decided

in the terms of judgment passed in A.K.Jain(supra) which has

been followed in Rajeev Kumar(supra) as under:

"6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that while the respondent Instrumentation Limited is governed by the directions

(2 of 3) [CW-4615/2018]

of their Vigilance Section, the directions of the Vigilance Section have to be in consonance with their own rules which have been framed. Any direction issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer has to be in consonance with the rules which are in force and which govern the concerned organization. 7. This court finds that admittedly, the Rule which governs the Instrumentation Limited is Rule 22-A, as quoted above. In absence of their being any provision to withhold retiral dues, except in circumstances stated under Rule 22-A, the directions issued by the vigilance dated 20/09/2013 with regard to Para (ii) cannot be said to be in consonance thereto and the same therefore, could not be applied for the purpose of withholding the amount of the petitioner. The judicial proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are said to commence from the day the charge-sheet is filed in the competent Court or where a charge-sheet under the relevant disciplinary and appeal rules is issued by the disciplinary authority as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. KV Jankiraman: AIR 1990(SC) 2010.

8. Keeping in view the above and also taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), it is directed that if in the event any claim is made out by the petitioner, the petitioner would submit a surety of the amount which is being released to him. The amount shall be released by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

9. As regards the second writ petition ( SB Civil Writ Petition No.16120 / 2015), the learned counsel for the respondents states that order of demand of penal rent from the petitioner has been revised in terms of the existing rules as they were in 2014 and as per instructions received, the balance amount has been also released in favour of the petitioner. 10. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to verify the same as on today. However, it is made clear that if the balance amount of penal rent recovered has not been released, the same shall be released within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11. With the aforesaid observations/directions both the writ petition stands disposed of." In the present writ petition also, the petitioner has prayed as under:

(3 of 3) [CW-4615/2018]

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to release all the Retiral/Pensionary benefits i.e. PF contribution contributed by respondents (Company), leave encashment amount, balance salary.

Any other order as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, just and proper be passed in favor of the petitioner." In view of the above, writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the retiral pensionary benefits i.e. PF contribution contributed by the respondent Company, leave encashment and balance salary, which shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner, within a period of two months from today."

The present writ petition is also accordingly allowed in the

aforesaid terms.

In view of allowing the writ petition, all the applications also

stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Anu/21/