Satya Bahar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Sharma, J

The petitioner by virtue of the present Writ Petition had initially challenged order dated 25.09.2012. Later the relief was amended by order dated 03.08.2018 and relief giving challenge to the preliminary enquiry report dated 04.04.2012 was also added by amendment. By virtue of the said impugned order an enquiry was proposed to be conducted against him for the set of allegations leveled in the said order, to the effect that the petitioner was instrumental in procuring the benefit of the wrongful disbursement of salary for a period of 01.6.2000 to 16.12.2007, thereby caused a loss to the department and public exchequer to the tune of Rs.8,80,800/-. Hence, according to the Secretary Education to the State of Uttarakhand, departmental proceedings were contemplated against him.

It seems and also borne out from record that the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 454 of 2005 (S/S) 'Satya Bahar vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others', wherein, he had challenged the order dated 17.05.2004, passed by the respondent no. 2 of the said Writ Petition directing to pass an appropriate order regarding the payment of salary to the petitioner admissible to the LT grade teachers w.e.f. 01.11.1996. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 01.03.2006. Operative portion of which is quoted hereunder:

"It is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner was duly selected by the Selection Committee and he was recommended for appointment on ad hoc basis as L.T. Grade teacher. He has been working in the college since 1.11.1996 and as such he is entitled to get salary of the post on which he is working.

In view of above, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is directed to pass appropriate orders regarding payment of salary to the petitioner admissible to the L.T. Grade Teachers from 1.11.1996."

The matter was put to challenge in Special Appeal No.151 of 2006 by State before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench by its judgment dated 15.12.2009 disposed of the said Appeal being Special Appeal No. 151 of 2006 'State of Uttarakhand & Others vs. Satya Bahar and Another' with the following directions:

"This case has left a bad taste in out mount, inasmuch as, the respondent Satya Bahar having continuously rendered service with effect from 01.11.1996, he was not paid his wages. He filed two writ petitions, one in 1997 and the second in 2001, although his selection at the hands of the college had been conducted in a fair and reasonable manner, and although, no objection to the same had been raised by the District Inspector of Schools, Haridwar, after the same was brought to his notice as far back as on 23.10.1996. On both occasions, when he approached the High Court (first at Allahabad and then at Nainital) he sought wages on account of the services rendered. Inspite of the fact, that his claim was allowed, wages have still not been paid to him. During the course of the hearing of the present appeal, we are of the view, that the submissions advanced at the hands of the appellants, were merely in the nature of obstacles stumbling blocks, raised at the hands of the appellants, without any justification. One could have understood, if the appellants had found that the process of selection adopted by the management of the college was unfair. Merely on technical objections the appellants have denied salary/wages, to an employee engaged merely on a short term ad hoc basis, can not be appreciated. We have found no infirmity in the selection process, or the fairness thereof, in the adjudication of the present appeal. We are, therefore, satisfied that besides requiring the appellants to disburse wages to the respondent Satya Bahar forthwith, exemplary costs deserve to be imposed on the appellants. We are satisfied that the appellants should pay costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand). The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the appellants with the High Court Bar Association of Uttarakhand. The receipt of costs deposited shall be placed on the record of this case within one month from today, failing which, the instant Special Appeal shall be re-listed for motion hearing, for the recovery of costs. The entire wages/salary payable to the respondent Satya Bahar shall be positively disbursed to him within one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order."

Thereafter, the matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court by State against the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in Special Appeal No. 151 of 2006 and the SLP No. 10791/2010 thus registered was dismissed on 19.04.2010. The Review Petition of the State as preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court being Review Petition (C) No. 1153/2010 in SLP (C) No. 10791/2010 was also dismissed on 20.07.2012.

The petitioner having sensed that since he was a wrongful beneficiary of the amount paid to him, he submitted a letter to the District Education Officer on 13.03.2012 and pleaded as under:

"egksn; izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ gS fd f"k{kk foHkkx dh fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k dks viuk;s fcuk gh eq>s Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA bl fo'k; esa ,d f"k{Kd gksus ds ukrs ;fn esjs foHkkxh; vf/kdkfj;ksa@dezpkfj;ksa dks nks'kh cuk;k tk jgk gS rks eSa vHkh rRdky layXud :Ik;s 400000 ¼"kCnksa esa pkj yk[k :Ik;s½ dks Mªk¶V la[;k 514733 fnukad 10 ekpZ 2012 ds }kjk okil dj jgk gwaA "ks'k /kujkf"k dk Mªk¶V Hkh "kh?kz gh okfil dj fn;k tk;sxk] d`Ik;k bl fo'k; esa fyf[kr vkns"k izkFkhZ dks "kh?kz izkIr djkus dh d`ik djsaA

fnukad 10 ekpZ 2012

/kU;oknA"

He by virtue of the demand draft No. 514733 dated 10. 03.2012 initially remitted a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and undertook to pay the balance amount of the liability of the excess payment made to him in future in compliance of the order issued by the High Court. Subsequently, the remaining amount of Rs.4,80,000/- was paid by the petitioner by draft No. 514734 on 12.03.2012. The petitioner had preferred a Contempt Petition also being Contempt Petition No. 49 of 2010 'Satya Bahar vs. Smt. Manisha Panwar, Secretary and Others' seeking compliance of the order dated 01.03.2006, which was affirmed by the Division Bench on 15.12.2009, which traveled to the Hon'ble Apex Court. Ultimately, Contempt Petition was disposed of on the ground that respondents have substantially complied with the directions issued by the Court and also took into consideration the impact and the affirmation of the judgment made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereby it was held out that petitioner would not be entitled for payment of salary for the period from 01st June, 2000 and thereafter.

When the present Writ Petition was filed on 08.10.2012, the Court has called upon the respondents to file their counter affidavit from the respective respondents. The respondent has filed the counter affidavit and during the pendency of the Writ Petition there was no interim order granted in favour of the petitioner because of the fact that the petitioner has already remitted back the amount said to have been paid to him in excess by the two demand drafts as referred above, and also because of the fact that the enquiry as contemplated by the impugned order was not put in abeyance, in all probability the enquiry must have been concluded by now. Hence, in view of the culmination of proceedings in the first phase of litigation upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and ultimately the decision rendered on the Contempt Petition by this Court and also because of the fact that pursuant to the action proposed to be taken against the petitioner he has already remitted back the amount of Rs.8,80,000/- by depositing the same and also because of the fact that when the impugned order dated 25. 09.2012 contemplating to conduct a departmental proceeding by the impugned order against the petitioner was put to challenge, there was no interim order granted in his favour by this Court. Hence, considering the rival contentions raised by the parties this Court is of the view that no cause of action survives as of now because in all probability the enquiry must have been concluded, and if it is not concluded till date, in that eventuality, Director, Primary Education, will ensure that the enquiry as intended to be conducted by the impugned order dated 25.09.2012 may be completed within a period of two months from today. In which it will be open for the petitioner to take all grounds of defense, including the one taken in the Writ Petition.

Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.