H.R. Yadav v. Union of India and others), whereby the writ petition filed by
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.23 10:17:48 +0530 2025:CGHC:3737-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 390 of 2023 H.R. Yadav (Appellant In Persion) S/o Late Shri Roopchand Yadav Aged About 74 Years Ex Employee, HSCL, R/o Radhika Nagar, 15/3 Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1 - Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs Through Joint Secretary (L & E) Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 2 - The General Manager Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chairman Cum Managing Director Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Reg. Office P-34, Gariya Hat Road, (South) Kolkata.- 700031 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. H.R. Yadav, in person. For Respondent No.1
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Government Cousnel. For Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.R. Yadav, appellant in person. Also heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for 2 respondents No.1 and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 24/08/2023 passed by the learned Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1062/2019 (H.R. Yadav v. Union of India and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge is that the appellant/writ petitioner was the ex employee of respondent Department and was working as Working Assistant as also provided Government accommodation. On 10.11.1988, a voluntary retirement scheme was brought by the respondent Nos.2 & 3, upon which the appellant/writ petitioner applied for the same and got voluntary retired on 31.07.2003, but the retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner and other employees, who also got voluntary retired, against which the other 3 employees filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.2/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2005 and the respondent Nos.2 & 3 were directed to pay the retiral dues to the retired employees of the respondent Department. The order dated 28.04.2005 was challenged by the writ petitioners therein before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the same got dismissed and thereafter a writ appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court, which was also dismissed. Despite the same, when the petitioner was not paid the retiral dues, the appellant/writ petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.494/2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.01.2015 with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to consider the case of the appellant/writ petitioner in accordance with the order passed in Writ Petition No.2/2021 upon his submitting a fresh representation and the appellant/writ petitioner was also directed to vacate the Government premises. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner submitted his representation on 13.02.2015 before the respondent No.3, but the same was not decided, against which the petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing CONT No.130/2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2017 on the ground that the retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner, as the same has been adjusted in other heads such house rent, electricity chages etc. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner again filed a writ petition bearing Writ 4 Petition (S) No.5714/2017 on the ground that since the earlier order of the Court has not been complied with and the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to get Rs.16,02,511.36 along with 12% per annum from the date of actual payment-cum- all the retiral benefits and also DA @ 59%, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2018 on the ground that the order dated 10.04.2017, whereby the appellant/writ petitioner was held entitled to the amount of Rs.2,24,377/- and after deduction of the same on other heads such as house rent, electricity charges etc., totaling Rs.2,47,560/- and Rs.14,359/-, the total amount of Rs.37,542/- was outstanding against the appellant/writ petitioner and the same was directed to be paid by the appellant/writ petitioner, but the said order dated 10.04.2017 has not been challenged, as such the same has attained finality, against which the writ appeal bearing WA No.794/2018 was also filed, but the same also stood dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2018. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 10.04.2017, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition being Writ Petition (S) No.1062 of 2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 24.08.2023. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 7. The appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order is 5 illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law and no disputed question of facts are involved requiring evidence. It has been contended that impugned order dated 24.08.2023 was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, which is not sustainable. As such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 submits that as the appellant/writ petitioner has not vacated the Government accommodation bearing Quarter/Block No.6B, Road No.85, Sector 6 from the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.07.2003, proceedings has been initiated against him under Section 630 of the Company Act, 1956 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg vide judgment dated 16.10.2024, convicted the appellant/writ petitioner for the offence 6 punishable under Section 630 of the Company Act, 1956 and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he would undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant in person does not dispute the said fact and submits that he has deposited the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court and the matter has been disposed of. 10. We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents as also perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 11. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, it is apparent that this is a seventh round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner, who was working as Working Assistant in the respondent Department, got voluntary retired on 31.07.2003 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, but when the retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner and other employees, who also got voluntary retired, he approached to the Court by filing Writ Petition No.2/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2005 and the respondent Nos.2 & 3 were directed to pay the retiral dues to the retired employees of the respondent Department, which was also challenged by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 in SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as in writ appeal before this Court and both were 7 dismissed. It is also transpires from the record that when the petitioner was not paid the retiral dues, the petitioner has filed WPS No.494/2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.01.2015 with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to consider the case of the petitioner upon his submitting a fresh representation and the petitioner was also directed to vacate the government premises, to which, the petitioner submitted his representation on 13.02.2015 before the respondent No.3, but the same was not decided, against which he filed a contempt petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2017 on the ground that the retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner, as the same has been adjusted in other heads such house rent, electricity charges etc. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed WPS No.5714/2017 on the ground that since the earlier order of the Court has not been complied with and the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.16,02,511.36 along with 12% per annum from the date of actual payment-cum-all the retiral benefits and also DA @ 59%, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2018, against which, WA No.794/2018 was also filed and the same also stood dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2018. Thereafter, the appellant filed WPS No.1062/2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the order under challenge dated 10.04.2017 had already attained finality, as it was never challenged by the appellant in any of the lis, wherein the same 8 parties were there, as are in the present case, hence, the prayer of the appellant for payment of retiral dues has been rejected as the same has already been paid to him, by observing as follows :- “11. In view of the foregoing discussions and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bank of India (supra), I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, as the order under challenge dated 10.04.2017 has already attained finality, as it was never challenged by the petitioner in any of the lis, wherein the same parties were there, as are in the present petition. The petitioner’s prayer for payment of retiral dues is also rejected, as the same has already been paid to him, which has also been observed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. 12. The writ petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.” 12. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as after perusal of the impugned order, we are of the 9 firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 13.
Decision
In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu