State of Jharkhand Through Its Secretary Department of Industries and Ors Vs. Ram Anugrah Pandey and Anr - Court Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 578 of 2015 1.   State   of   Jharkhand   through   its   Secretary,   Department   of  Industries,   Government   of   Jharkhand,   Nepal   House,   Doranda,  Ranchi 2.   The   Director,   Department   of   Industries,   Government   of  Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi 3.   General   Manager,   District   Industries   Centre,   Ratu   Road,  PO­GPO, PS­Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi  ...     …  Appellants   Versus 1.   Ram   Anugrah   Pandey,   S/o­   Late   Trijugi   Pandey,   R/o­   Debi  Mandap Road, Ratu Road, Hehal, Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi 2.  The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand,  Project Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi             ...  ...    Respondents  ­­­­­ For the Appellants  : Mr. Abhay Prakash, J.C. to G.A. For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate   Mr. Suraj singh, Advocate   Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate   Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate ­­­­­ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR   ­­­­­ th  06/Dated: 10    May, 2016     Per, Virender Singh, C.J.

  For no fault of the respondent­writ petitioner, when a  part   of   the   retiral   benefits   was   not   paid   to   him,   compelled   to  approach the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2014 which was  disposed of vide order dated 24.03.2014 with a direction to the  appellant no.3­General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi  to take a decision in the matter within twelve weeks. However,  when   the   representation   submitted   by   the   respondent   was   not  2 decided   as  directed   by   the   Writ  Court,   the   respondent   initiated  Contempt (Civil) Case No. 601 of 2014 which invited the wrath of  the   Deputy   Director,   Industries   who   passed   order   dated  29.05.2014   and  the  General  Manager,  District   Industries  Centre  who passed order dated 03.06.2014 whereby, the benefits under  1st  and 2nd ACP as well as 3rd MACP granted to the respondent was  withdrawn and order dated 06.08.2005 whereby, the respondent's  service was confirmed was withdrawn with a further direction for  recovery   of   excess   amount   paid   to   the   respondent.   Aggrieved  thereof, the respondent­writ  petitioner knocked the door of this  Court   by   filing   W.P.(S)   No.   1855   of   2015   which   now   stands  allowed vide order dated 04.08.2015. 2.     Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the  documents on record. 3.    Mr.   Abhay   Prakash,   the   learned   counsel   for   the  appellant­State of Jharkhand contends that the initial appointment  of the respondent was made by an incompetent officer and the  appointment   was   liable   to   be   terminated   once   the   original  appointee   namely,   Bhoj   Deogam   returned   after   leave   and   thus,  continuance of the respondent in service was illegal. Reiterating  the stand taken before the Writ Court, the learned counsel submits  that an employee who continued in service illegally cannot seek  post­retirement benefits.  4.    Per contra, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the  3 respondent­writ petitioner submits that the respondent's   service  was approved and confirmed in accordance with law and benefits  under ACP/MACP were extended to him strictly in terms of extant  rules/circular. It is contended that during the entire service tenure  of the respondent­writ petitioner, the State never questioned the  legality of appointment of the respondent however, the appellant  no. 3­General Manager who is not competent to recall/review the  orders   passed   by   the   competent   authorities   has   unsettled   the  settled position. 5.     The facts disclosed in the present proceeding indicate that  the   respondent   was   appointed   on   the   vacant   post   of   typist   on  08.02.1975   and   the   Additional   Director,   Industries,   Ranchi  granted   approval   to   the   appointment   of   the   respondent   on  10.12.1975. This fact completely demolishes the plea taken by the  State   that   the   respondent's   appointment   was   against   a   leave  vacancy which could not have been continued after the original  appointee returned from leave. The learned Writ Court referred to  the   delegation   of   power   of   appointment   to   Additional/Joint  Deputy Director, Industries/In­charge of Regional Office at Ranchi,  Patna,   Muzaffarpur   and   Bhagalpur   for   appointment   against  sanctioned post of which the salary does not exceed Rs. 450/­ per  month   and   concluded   that   the   respondent's   appointment   was  made   by   a   competent   authority.   It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the  respondent's  salary, as reflected in the appointment letter dated  4 08.02.1975, was fixed in the pay­scale of Rs. 220­4­240 EB­5­290  EB­5­315 with allowances sanctioned from time to time which was  less than Rs. 450/­ at the time of appointment. It is pertinent to  note   that   order   dated   28.06.1978   under   which   the   employees  working under different District Industries Office, on constitution  of District Industries Centre by the Industries Department, were  transferred bears the name of the respondent at Sl. No. 19 and  thereafter,   the   respondent  was  granted  1st  time­bond  promotion  which   was   confirmed   by   the   order   of   the   Additional   Director,  Industries w.e.f. 08.02.1985.  6.     It is also not in dispute that vide order dated 06.08.2005  issued   by   the   Director,   Industries   services   of   several   employees  including   the   respondent   were   confirmed.   Not   only   that,   the  respondent   has   been   granted   benefits   of   1 st  and   2nd  ACP   w.e.f.  09.08.1999, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee.  However, ignoring the orders passed by the competent authorities  the   General   Manager   passed   the   impugned   order   dated  03.06.2014 recalling the order of confirmation of the respondent's  service dated 26.08.2005 which is an order passed by the Director,  Department  of Industries which the General Manager being the  junior officer in hierarchy could not have recalled. 7.    On a reading of the order passed by the appellant no. 3  what strikes the mind is the fact that the  General Manager while  recording that the respondent's appointment was against a leave  5 vacancy which should not have been continued after return of the  original   employee   namely,  Bhoj  Deogam,   has  failed  to  record   a  finding that the respondent continued in service on a post which  was   not   sanctioned.   On   the   contrary,   order   dated   10.12.1975  discloses that the respondent's appointment on the vacant post of  typist   was   approved   by   the   Additional   Director,   Department   of  Industries.  In the counter­affidavit filed by the respondents before  the Writ Court no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation or any  kind   of   misconduct   has   been   imputed   to   the   respondent­writ  petitioner.   The   respondent   superannuated   from   service   after  rendering more than 38 years of service  on 31.08.2013 and he  was paid the post­retiral benefits of GPF and Group Insurance and  his provisional pension @ Rs 11,970/­ per month was also fixed  by the authority.  8.    In   the   aforesaid   facts,   by   no   stretch   of   imagination   the  appointment   of   the   respondent   can   be   said   to   be   illegal   or  irregular.  The  order of confirmation of the service  and grant of  benefits under ACP/MACP are not illegal orders which by a stroke  of pen the appellant no. 3­General Manager could have wiped out.  The   sad   part   of   the   story   is   that   the   appellant   no.   3­General  Manager   who   in   his   order   dated   03.06.2014   referred   to   the  decisions in “State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi” (2006) 4 SCC 1   and “State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Keshari and Others” (2010)   9 SCC 247,  seems to have completely forgotten the constitutional  6 obligation of the State to pay post­retiral benefits to an employee  in terms of the  extant  rules/circular. What has been held by the  Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in   “Deokinandan   Prasad   Vs.   State   of   Bihar & Others” (1971) 2 SCC 330 by which the debate on the  nature of pension; whether it is purely gratuitous or a reward for  past services was finally settled, has been ignored by the appellant  no. 3­General Manager with impunity. It needs no reiteration that  denial   of   pension   to   an   employee   has   been   held   violative   of  Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India   [“S.K.   Mastan   Bee   Vs.   General Manager, South Central Railways & Another” (2003) 1   SCC   184].   At   this   juncture,   on   the   philosophy   of   pension   the  observation   of   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  “D.S.   Nakara   &   Others Vs. Union of India” (1983)1 SCC 305 is reproduced;  “It   is   a   social   welfare   measure   rendering   socio­economic justice to those who in the hey­day of   their   life   ceaselessly   toiled   for   the   employer   on   an   assurance that in their old age they would not be left   in lurch.” 9.    After  noticing  the  milestones in  the  service  career of  the  respondent­writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge has succinctly  discussed the issue as under :

6.     “....   Facts   have   consciously   been   noticed   in   some   detail   to   show   that   at   no   point   of   time,   respondents   questioned   the   legality   of   the   petitioner's   original   appointment. They in fact, proceeded to grant approval   to the appointment of the petitioner in December 1975   7 and granted first time bound promotion with effect from   08.02.1985   by   an   order   of   1994.   The   services   of   the   petitioner were also confirmed along with several others   by   the   Director,   Industries   himself   in   2005.   On   the   recommendation   of   the   Screening   Committee,   the   respondents   also   confirmed   grant   of   ACP   to   the   petitioner after completion of 12/24 years of his service   with effect from 08.02.1999. In these background facts   therefore, the stand taken by the respondents to cancel   the   orders   of  confirmation  and  grant  of  ACP  /  MACP   and   render   the   original   appointment   of   the   petitioner   itself illegal, does not have any legal basis. Such a course   was wholly unwarranted on the part of the Respondent   No.   4   based   upon   a   communication   of   the   Deputy   Director,  Industries who completely  overlooked that  an   order   of   confirmation   of   the   petitioner's   service   was   issued  by  the Director himself. Therefore, the basis for   issuance of impugned order by Respondent No. 4 and the   letter of Deputy Director, Industries dated 29.06.2015 is   also bad in law in the light of the orders of confirmation   granted by the Director, Industries himself in respect of   the   petitioner   and   few   other   employees   of   District   Industries Centre in 2005. Respondents have shown no   mercy   while   computing   the   amount   for   recovery   by   calculating salary, emoluments and allowances granted   to   him   from   the   date   of   creation   of   the   State   i.e.   15.11.2000 by Annexure­10 dated 19.09.2014, though   undisputedly  he  has  discharged  his  duties  for  the said   period.   This   obviously   is   based   upon   the   impugned   decision at Annexure­9 to the writ petition. By no stretch   of  logic  or reasoning or  legal  authority, such a course   can be sustained in the eye of law.” 8 10.      Having carefully gone through the materials produced in  the   present   proceeding,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that  order   dated   04.08.2015   in   W.P.(S)   No.   1855   of   2015   does   not  suffer   from   any   infirmity   in   law   and   the   instant   Letters   Patent  Appeal does not deserve admission.  11.       In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, we are  constrained to record that the respondent has been unnecessarily  dragged   to   a   series   of   litigations.   As   noticed   above,   the  respondent­writ   petitioner   approached   this   Court   in  W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2014 seeking a direction for fixation of final  pension, payment of gratuity, commutation of pension and leave  encashment   etc.   When   the   direction   of   this   Court   was   not  complied,   he   was   constrained   to   file   Contempt   (Civil)   Case  No. 601 of 2014 and after the order dated 19.09.2014 was passed  by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi, he was  compelled to approach this Court once again. Not only that, for  compliance of the order passed by the Writ Court the respondent  had   to   file   another   contempt   case.   Still,   the   appellant­State   of  Jharkhand   did   not   comply   the   Writ   Court's   order.   The   instant  Letters   Patent   Appeal   was   filed   on   29.09.2015  and  it   remained  defective atleast for about two months and it was only after the  respondent   filed   the   contempt   case,   the   instant   Letters   Patent  Appeal was prosecuted on 02.05.2016.  12.      The   State   of   Jharkhand   has   framed   its   Litigation   Policy  9 under   which   it   vows   to   reduce/discourage   frivolous   litigations  however,   the   chronology   of   litigation   in   the   instant   matter   has  manifestly made clear that the appellant­State has ignored its own  policy or the officers at the helm of affairs are just not bothered to  adhere to it.  Considering the facts and circumstances in the case,  we   are   satisfied  that  the  instant  Letters Patent  Appeal warrants  dismissal with exemplary cost. At this stage, we may hasten to add  that  it   is   not   the   filing   of   the   Letters   Patent   Appeal   which   has  invited cost upon the appellant­State rather, it is the frivolity of  litigation and failure on the part of the State to pay retiral benefits  to the respondent which has prompted us to award cost, which is  quantified at Rs. 20,000/­.  The cost imposed upon the appellant­ State may be paid to the respondent within four weeks however,  the post­retiral benefits to the respondent must be paid within two  weeks i.e. on or before 25.05.2016. 13.     The final outcome is that the instant Letters Patent Appeal  stands dismissed.   14.     I.A. No. 5646 of 2015 also stands dismissed.    (Virender Singh, C.J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/ A.F.R.