Sakhraj Ram vs State of U.P. and Others

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the back wages may be paid to the Petitioner on the ground that in various judgments this Court has held that the back wages would be available to such similarly situated persons.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was Constable in P.A.C. and his services were terminated on 31.5.1973 on account of his alleged involvement in the P.A.C. revolt. The Petitioner challenged the order of termination by filing Writ Petition No. 38702 of 1998 before this Court and the same was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 8.9.1999 directing the Respondents to consider the reinstatement of the Petitioner. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Petitioner was reinstated in service, but his back wages have not been paid up till now. He further submitted that various writ petitions were filed by similarly situated persons for payment of their back wages and those writ petitions were allowed by this Court. Against the orders passed by Hon''ble Single Judge in those writ petitions, Special Appeal No. 110 of 2000 along with other connected Special Appeals were filed by the State of U.P. which were dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15-11-2002. Against the order passed in the Special Appeals, SLP No. 4236 of 2003 along with other Special Leave Petitions were filed, which too were dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 7.5.2003. It is also submitted that once this Court has already taken a view in those writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons that they are entitled for the payment of back wages, the present Petitioner cannot be denied for the same benefits.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has tried to draw the attention of this Court towards the fact that in the case of Satish Chandra Chaturvedi the apex Court has taken a view otherwise and has refused for making payment of back wages.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that Satish Chandra Chaturvedi was the person, who was reinstated on the strength of the Government Order and he never approached this Court for his claim nor his claim was adjudicated at the relevant time. The controversy in regard to payment of back wages to the similarly situated persons was decided by this Court in various writ petitions and this Court found that the payment of back wages is liable to be paid. The Special Appeals filed by the State of U.P. against the said orders were dismissed by this Court and the orders passed in the said Special Appeals were the subject matter of challenge in the apex Court. The Special Leave Petitions filed against the orders passed in the Special Appeals were also dismissed vide order dated 7.5.2003. The Petitioner''s claim for payment of back wages is different in comparison to the case of Satish Chandra Chaturvedi and that case does not apply in the present case as stated above. The Petitioner is continuously pursuing his claim for payment of back wages but the same has not been paid up till now.

For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the case of the present Petitioner is similar to the case of the Petitioners of those writ petitions, which were allowed, therefore, the present writ petition is also liable to be allowed.

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the orders dated 21.3.2002, 16.10.2002 and 13.9.2000. The Respondents are directed to pay the back wages to the Petitioner in accordance with law.