Chet Ram Sharma vs State of Haryana

Swatanter Kumar, J.—In the suit filed by the plaintiff on 26.4.1978, the plaintiff had made the following prayer :

"It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed with costs against the defendant by declaring that the impugned order dated 15.10.76 contained in Notification No. 6536-Agri.I()76/20965 of even date being illegal, unconstitutional, void, ultravires, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, malafide and against the statutory rules on the grounds mentioned above, the plaintiff is entitled to be deemed to have continued in service from 15.10.76 and onwards till the age of 58 years, with all benefits. Any further or other relief as may be warranted by facts proved on record may also be awarded."

The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court. The appeal filed against that order was also dismissed by the first appellate Court and the Regular Second Appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by this High Court. However, the order of the High Court was set aside by the Hon''ble Apex Court who had passed the following order:

"The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by order dated October 15, 1976. The assessment of the petitioner appears to have been prominently based on his involvement in a criminal case which was later convicted by the trial Court but subsequently acquitted by the appellate Court. He has secured a clear acquittal. In the meantime, he has reached the age of superannuation on August 31, 1980. His claim now is that the order of the compulsorily retirement has been knocked off by his acquittal and it cannot therefore be sustained. The plea of the State, however, is that there was an overall assessment of the petitioner''s case for compulsory retirement including his involvement in the criminal case. But from the records it appears there was no adverse remark against him prior to his involvement in the criminal case. Therefore what weighed with the authorities for compulsory retirement was the prosecution in the criminal case. We do not think that the order of compulsory retirement, could be sustained. We accordingly set aside that order. The petitioner, however, is only entitled to monetary benefits for the period from October 15, 1976 to August 31, 1980 and less the payment received by way of pension during that period. The payment shall be computed and paid to the appellant within four months from today."

The learned counsel while referring to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, etc. etc., , contends that the petitioner was entitled to all promotions and the respondents had violated the order of the Court in not granting such benefit to the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the State contends that the Hon''ble Supreme Court had restricted the relief of the plaintiff only to "monetary benefits" and all such benefits have been given to the petitioner. The judgment in K.V. Jankiraman''s case (supra) is of no consequence as it has no application of the facts of the case. This argument do not detain this Court any further as the Hon''ble Apex Court in the contempt petition being C.P. No. 51 of 1992 had clarified the order and directed the respondents to pay the monetary benefits with increments and no other direction was passed and the contempt petition was disposed of. The order of the Hon''ble Apex Court passed on 18.1.1992 in the contempt petition reads as under:

"In view of the content of the order dated 27.7.1990 of this Court, which does not refer to the notional promotion to be given to the applicant, there is no contempt of the said order as pleaded by the applicant. The applicant may either get the clarification of the said order or apply for a review of it, if he is so advised.

We are of the view that the applicant is entitled to the increments, if any, which fall due since the date of compulsory retirement to the date of superannuation. The monetary benefit due to him, therefore, should be calculated on the basis of the said increments, if any. The additional monetary benefit, if any, calculated on the basis of the increments, may be paid to the applicant within 8 weeks from today. The petition is disposed of accordingly."

It is clear from the above order of the Hon''ble Apex Court that the petitioner was entitled only to the monetary benefits and as subsequently directed by the Hon''ble Apex Court to the increments which had fallen due to him because of continuity of service. The benefit of principle enunciated and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of K.V. Jankiraman''s (supra) had already been given to him by the Hon''ble Apex Court. Promotion cannot be treated as a consequential relief per se in fact even in the plaint, no such prayer was made by the plaintiff and even if such a prayer is presumed to have been made then it would be deemed to have been rejected by the Hon''ble Apex Court in terms of its order dated 27.7.1990. The present writ petition, therefore, has no merit as the matter finally stood concluded by the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate its claim over and ever again, based upon the same cause of action.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to get interest as the payments were not made within the stipulated period as directed by the Hon''ble Apex Court. The order of Hon''ble Apex Court did not give any such direction/relief to the petitioner.

No merit. Dismissed.

Petition dismissed.