Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. Muralidhar, Talwant Singh, JJ.
U.C. Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3327 of 2018
Decided On : 08-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Amit Singh Chauhan, Hemant Chauhan, Dev P. Bhardwaj, Anubha Bhardwaj, Jatin Teotia.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Petitioner to demonstrate the incorrectness of the Respondents' calculations and the grant of liberty to seek other appropriate remedies.
Headnote:
Interest - Administrative Law - Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Section 15(2), Section 17(1)(a) - The court discussed the history of the case, including the Petitioner's appointment, transfer order, reinstatement, and various legal proceedings related to arrears of pay and increments. The court also considered the Respondents' compliance with previous orders and the Petitioner's claims under the ACP Scheme. Key legal provisions such as Section 15(2) and Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 were interpreted and applied in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought specific directions for payment of interest on arrears of pay and compensation for harassment. The case involved a long history of legal proceedings related to the Petitioner's appointment, transfer, reinstatement, arrears of pay, and increments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the incorrectness of the Respondents' calculations and the amount still due. The court also noted that the Petitioner had been granted liberty to seek other appropriate remedies.
Issues: The issues included compliance with previous orders, calculation of arrears of pay and increments, and the Petitioner's claims under the ACP Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner's failure to demonstrate the incorrectness of the Respondents' calculations and the grant of liberty to seek other appropriate remedies justified the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Petitioner was granted liberty to seek other appropriate remedies.
JUDGMENT :
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. The present petition is directed against an order dated 15th September, 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench in C.P. No. 52/2017 in O.A. No. 285/2008 filed by the Petitioner as well as an order dated 15th November, 2017 passed by the CAT dismissing the Petitioner's Review Application No. 238/2017. The Petitioner has sought specific directions to the Respondents to pay the Petitioner interest at 12% per annum on a sum of Rs. 1,19,220/- being the pay of the Petitioner from 1978 to 1984 and further a sum of Rs. 50,944/- (as increment together with interest at 12% p.a.) from 22nd July, 2013 to 24th March, 2018. The Petitioner has also claimed a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs from the Respondents as compensation for mental and physical harassment.
2. This case has a long and chequered history. The Petitioner was appointed to the post of Store Keeper, Grade-II at the office of the Garrison Engineer (MES) (Respondent No. 2) on 22nd December, 1963. He challenged a transfer order dated 26th October, 1978, whereby he was sought to be transferred from Lucknow to Bihar, by filing Regular Suit No. 97/1981 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Lucknow. By an order dated 6th September, 1982 the said Court restrained the Respondents permanently from implementing the said transfer order as it was violative of an office circular dated 29th November, 1972 issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). According to the Petitioner, although he started reporting for duty thereafter, he was not assigned any work by Respondent No. 2. Ultimately, only by an order dated 12th April, 1984 was the Petitioner reinstated in service with effect from 9th/10th May, 1984. In the said order, it was directed that the intervening period would be treated as having been spent on duty.
3. The Petitioner refers to a Posting Order dated 14th March, 1985 which notes that the Petitioner had "already been adjusted in GE (West), Lucknow in the grade of Group-B" in accordance with an Office Memorandum ("OM") dated 15th June, 1968.
4. The Petitioner filed Case No. 563/1983 before the Prescribed Authority ("PA") under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 ("POWA") seeking arrears of pay for the interregnum period. Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection before the PA as to the maintainability of the above claim. By an order dated 21st April, 1984, the PA directed that the said issue would be considered at the time of the final arguments of the case on merits. Respondent No. 2 challenged the said order by filing W.P. (C) No. 2879/ 1984 at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Allahabad. By an order dated 7th May, 1987 the Lucknow Bench held that the PA had jurisdiction over the matter.
5. Meanwhile, the Petitioner also filed Case No. 330/1986 before the PA on 19th July, 1986. This was for the arrears of pay for the period between October, 1983 to 19th July, 1986. By an order dated 16th July, 1992, the PA held in favour of the Petitioner.
6. Respondent No. 2 challenged the aforementioned order dated 16th July, 1992 of the PA under Section 17 (1) (a) of the POWA in M.C. Appeal No. 205/1992 before the Additional District Judge ("ADJ") Lucknow. Initially the appeal was allowed ex parte on 30th August, 1993. Later, by an order dated 11th January, 1995, the learned ADJ recalled the said order allowing the Petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").
7. The Revision Petition filed by Respondent No. 2 against the said order in the High Court of Allahabad stood dismissed for default on 20th September, 1999. M.C. Appeal No. 205/1992 itself stood dismissed for default by the ADJ on 29th July, 2000 after it was revived on an application by Respondent No. 2. Once again it was restored and once again dismissed in default on 23rd July, 2002. A third application for restoration was dismissed in default on 11th October, 2002.
8. Against the last order dated 11th October, 2
