State of U.P.and Others vs Ved Prakash

This special appeal filed by the State with a delay of 19 days challenges the order passed by learned single Judge dated 1.11.2007 by means of which writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed with a direction to the State to make payment of salary in the revised pay scale for the period from 2.12.1994 to 22.2.1999 and determine the seniority from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge assessing the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the State Government in dealing with the respondent''s claim has also imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/ upon the State.

The facts, which no more remain in controversy nor could be controverted, are that the respondent while working on the post of Amin faced termination order on 30.9.1976. The order was challenged before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. However, the claim petition was dismissed. The respondent filed writ petition No.1272 of 1990, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 2.12.1994. The Court while allowing the writ petition directed that though the respondent was not entitled for payment of arrears of salary but seniority shall be counted from the date of initial appointment, meaning thereby that the period during which he remained out of employment, services shall not be treated as break in service and shall be counted for other service purposes. This order passed by the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.14811 of 1996, which was dismissed on 18.11.1996 in default. The restoration application was filed before the Apex Court, which was dismissed on 4.1.1999. The respondent was reinstated into service on 22.2.1999 and he resumed his duties on 23.2.1999 but he was not paid salary for the period from 2.12.1994 to 22.2.1999 nor the seniority was fixed from the date of initial appointment.

Since the State failed to comply with the directives issued by the High Court despite dismissal of the S.L.P. and restoration application before the Apex Court, he filed the present writ petition No.7207 of 2002 (S/S). The learned Single Judge finding that the claim of the respondent stands settled there was no occasion for the State to delay in providing the benefit given by the aforesaid order of the High Court and after taking into account the manner in which the State has dealt with the issue has imposed aforesaid costs of Rs.50,000/ with the directive to give consequential benefits and also salary for the period in question.

Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Standing Counsel has assailed the order on the ground that imposition of Rs.50,000/ as costs was uncalled for as delay in making payment had occurred because the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court and the State was having sanguine hope of success in the special leave petition. Her submission is that in case of success of appeal before the Supreme Court the respondent would not have been entitled to any amount. Therefore, the State Government in its discretion did not make payment and was waiting for the outcome of the pending matter before the Supreme Court.

We find it appropriate to observe at the very outset that the State Government or for that matter any authority against whom verdict has been pronounced by a Court of law, may be the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of any Act or the civil Court or the High Court, does not have any authority or power to withhold the compliance merely by challenging the order in the superior Court or superior forum but without getting an interim order of stay against the judgment or order which is under appeal or under challenge. In case an order is passed by the Subordinate Court or the Tribunal, it is the right of the aggrieved person may be the State Government or the person against whom order has been passed and who is under obligation to comply with the same to challenge the order in the higher/superior legal forum and get the implementation and operation of the said order stayed but merely because the challenge has been made in the superior Court, the State of its own does not have authority to say that it shall not comply with the order, since it is under challenge before the higher Court.

We find it necessary to make this observation for the reason that in number of cases of which we take notice invariably the judgments and orders passed by the State Public Services Tribunal or the Central Administrative Tribunal are not complied with by the State Government or the Corporations nor writ petitions are filed but when contempt proceedings are initiated such orders are challenged. There cannot be any justification nor the authority with the State Government or the Corporation or any other authority to sit tight over the order passed by the judicial forum and wait for initiation of contempt proceedings even for challenging the same nor it is open to them to withhold its compliance merely because they have challenged the order in the superior Court, even though there is no interim order in their favour or that the claimantlitigant does not have that might or power to get the orders implemented without coming to the Court. The State and its functionaries are under constitutional obligation to follow the rule of law which includes implementation of the orders passed by the judicial forum including the Tribunal and not to flout those orders either by inaction or deliberate violation.

The plea that since the State was hopeful of its success before the Supreme Court despite there being no stay order from the Supreme Court, the order of the High Court was not complied with is thus outrightly rejected. It is apparently a camouflage for not complying with the order passed by the High Court for no valid reason. It may always be kept in mind that a litigation by a government servant or public servant against the State or Corporation or any other employer can''t be taken as a personal vendetta and the employer or the State Government is not supposed to fight it only with a view to defeat the claim of the public servant. For that the State is duty bound to assist the Court and also render justice to the aggrieved party.

The facts, which have been referred to above, do not leave any doubt that the State deliberately, consciously and with no valid reason, delayed the implementation of the judicial order.

The respondent had been litigating right from 1976. The SLP was filed and dismissed in the year 1999 and even then the State did not change its mind. It is a matter of concern that the respondent, who was having all the orders in his favour right from 1994, was denied fruits of those orders and he had to file another writ petition in the year 2002. The respondent was dragged into litigation once again and the writ petition again remained pending for a period of five years and in the meantime in the year 2003 the respondent attained the age of superannuation. Whole service career of the respondent was consumed only in litigation before one Court or the other.

If the public servant or government servant is unnecessarily dragged into litigation in which he is to face the powerful State, his condition can well be imagined, apart from the fact that what effect such litigations will have on the efficiency in the administration and of course, besides wasting lot of time, energy and funds.

In the instant case it is not clear as to whether the SLP was filed along with an application for stay. In case no application of the stay had been moved, there will be no reason for the State to withhold the compliance of the order passed by the High Court, and if any such application was moved, but the Supreme Court did not grant any stay order, even then the implementation of the order could not have been withheld. Thus, the State was not at liberty to withhold the compliance of the order passed by the High Court and drag the respondent into litigation.

The learned counsel for the State has not been able to indicate any single reason apart from the aforesaid plea that why the order passed in 1994 was not complied with till date.

We are informed by Smt. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel for the State, that in compliance of the order passed by the High Court certain amount has already been paid including the amount of the arrears of salary and determination of seniority as per orders of the High Court has been done only on 29.12.2007 within the time provided by the Court, in the present order under challenge.

Sri Anurag Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent however says that seniority of the respondent has yet not been given from the date of initial appointment. Smt. Sangeeta Chandra says that since in the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge on 1.11.2007 the State Government was directed to give the benefit from the date of judgment inadvertently, which date has been corrected by the learned Single Judge afterwards, on application being moved. The necessary compliance would be done accordingly forthwith.

We direct that the State Government shall redetermine the seniority of the respondent as per orders within a maximum period of one month.

So far as award of costs is concerned, we do not find that there is any justification or any reason for setting aside the order or to interfere with the said order in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Regarding initiation of the contempt proceedings and liberty to pursue the claim for damages, suffice it would be to say that in our opinion these directions are no more required to be given. The order of learned single Judge to that extent is set aside. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The order of learned Single Judge is modified to the aforesaid extent and the rest of the judgment is upheld.

(Appeal allowed partly)