West Singhbhum, Jharkhand v. Roshni Tiroo
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 175 of 2024 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. The Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, having its Office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Chaibasa, P.O.-Chaibasa, P.S.- Sadar Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Manoharpur Head Office Chakradharpur, P.O. & P.S. Manoharpur, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. The Executive Engineer, National Rural Employment Program (NREP), Simdega, P.O. & P.S. & District-Simdega, Jharkhand. The Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Sub Division, Majhgao, P.O. & P.S.- Majhgao, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... ... ... Appellants Versus Roshni Tiroo@ Roshni Horo Tiroo, aged about 56 years, W/o Late Martan Tiroo, R/o- Dhumsatoli, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, District- Ranchi. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. & District- Pakur, Jharkhand. The Accountant General, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellants: --------- Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G-II --------- Order No. 04 /Dated: 14th June 2024 The State of Jharkhand is aggrieved by the directions of the writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 1789 of 2021 to pay the benefits of 6th Pay Revision, 2nd ACP and the gratuity amount with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum and cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The writ Court as aforesaid held as under: “Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons. (i) Time and again this Court has been directing the respondents for payment of retiral dues, post retiral dues, death benefits to the employees. In view of orders of this Court, a Notification has also been issued by the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand for payment of post retiral/ death-cum- rtiral benefits to the employees. This case is glaring example in which right from the year 2009 till date, more than 13 years a widow has been harassed at the hands of the respondents and her benefits for which she is entitled for i.e. the amount of Gratuity, benefits of 6th Pay Revision, benefits of ACP etc. has been denied. It appears that the respondents thinks as if they are doing favour to the employees, though they are entitled for the same. Even widow who are awaiting for their entitlement, are running from pillar to post. (ii) It has been held in plethora of Judgments that retiral benefits are not bounty to be given to the employees or their dependent by the respondents. It is their legal rights rather Constitutional right. If someone has worked, he or his dependent are entitled to receive the amout towards retiral dues. (iii) In the instant case, for 13 long years, though admitted dues were paid but the benefits of 6th Pay Revision, amount of Gratuity, 2nd ACP etc. has not yet been extended to the petitioner. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that nothing has been brought on record to show as to what action has been taken against the Executive Engineer, NREP, Simdega, who was sitting tight over the matter for 13 years. In the circumstances, I, hereby, direct the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, to get the entire amount calculated in the heads of 6th Pay Revision, 2nd ACP and amount of Gratuity from the office of Executive Engineer, Simdega as well as the Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur. The entire amount shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and cost of Rs.50,000/- to be recovered from the erring officials of the Department who was responsible for such delayed payment and harassing a widow. The entire exercise be concluded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Office of the Accountant General is also required to consider the matter and after receiving recommendation, shall immediately release the amount in favour of the petitioner. As a sequitur to aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.” 3. In the counter affidavit filed before the writ Court, the appellants herein set up a plea that ‘No Dues Certificate’ was furnished by
Decision
the writ petitioners (hereinafter referred as respondent no.1) in the year 2022 2 L.P.A. No. 175 of 2024 and thereafter necessary steps were taken. The writ Court observed that the respondent no.1 whose husband died in harness on 19th June 2009 had to run from pillar to post for obtaining ‘No Dues Certificate’ and, even thereafter, the death-cum-retiral dues accrued on death of her husband and other benefits were not given to her. We further find that for grant of 2nd ACP there seems to be no requirement of furnishing ‘No Dues Certificate’ and in any event the amount of gratuity could not have been withheld by the respondent-authority. In our opinion, once the first ACP benefit is given to a Government employee, there should not have been any difficulty in extending the benefits of 2nd ACP provided the Government employee fulfills all necessary conditions. From the pleadings before the writ Court, we observed that no such objection was taken by the respondent-authority as to entitlement of the husband of the respondent no.1 to receive the benefits of 2nd ACP. Similarly, the benefit of 6th Pay Revision also could not have been withheld and, that too, overlooking of laxity on the part of the officials of the State of Jharkhand who did not provide ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the respondents for long 13 years. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ Court rightly saddled the State of Jharkhand with cost of Rs. 50,000/- and issued a direction for payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. A litigant who takes frivolous and unreasonable stand in a Court of law must be saddled with cost to compensate the other party and the amount of cost must be such that the litigant must think twice before putting forth a speculative or unreasonable defence in the Court. 5. In “Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India” (2005) 6 SCC 344 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “37. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party. Unfortunately, it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In a large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section 35(2) of the Code. Such a practice also encourages the filing of frivolous suits. It also leads to the taking up of frivolous defences. Further, wherever costs are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and are nominal. When Section 35(2) provides for cost to follow the event, it is implicit that the costs have to be those which are reasonably incurred by a successful party except in those cases where the court in its discretion may direct otherwise by recording reasons therefor. The 3 L.P.A. No. 175 of 2024 costs have to be actual reasonable costs including the cost of the time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or any other incidental costs besides the payment of the court fee, lawyer's fee, typing and other costs in relation to the litigation. It is for the High Courts to examine these aspects and wherever necessary make requisite rules, regulations or practice direction so as to provide appropriate guidelines for the subordinate courts to follow.” 6. Since the respondent no.1 was deprived of her lawful dues, she has rightly been held entitled for compensation by way of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. 7. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with a direction to the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, to ensure compliance of the writ Court’s directions within next six weeks. Pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) VK (Navneet Kumar, J.) 4 L.P.A. No. 175 of 2024