Vijaya Florence Tiru, daughter of Late Liyender Tiru, resident of Torpa Road, Khunti, P.O v. 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, P.O. Bihar Vidhan
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 644 of 2015 ---- Vijaya Florence Tiru, daughter of Late Liyender Tiru, resident of Torpa Road, Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Khunti, District Jharkhand. … … Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, P.O. Bihar Vidhan Sabha, P.S. Sachiwalaya, Patna, District Patna, Bihar. 2. The Speaker, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, P.O. Bihar Vidhan Sabha, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna, Bihar. 3. The Union of the Chief Election Commissioner, Nirwachan Sadan, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. Barakhamba Road, District New Delhi. through India … … Respondents/Respondents
Legal Reasoning
------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Ganga Kumari Kachhap, Advocate Mr. Rajshree Sinha, Advocate For the State of Bihar: Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate Order No. 06 : Dated 13th May, 2024 -------- I.A. No. 2174 of 2024 1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents-State did not raise the objection to the delay condonation application. 4. In view of reason assigned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned
Decision
5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2174 of 2024 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 644 of 2015 6. The instant appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 27.07.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6338 of 2013 by learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period between 06.03.1985 to 11.09.1989 to which allegedly the father of the petitioner was entitled to, has been denied by dismissing the writ petition taking the ground that the writ petition is barred by constructive resjudicata. 7. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, reads as under: 8. The deceased-father of the appellant, late Liyender Tiru, contested election in the year 1985 for Bihar Legislative Assembly from Torpa (Schedule Tribe) Assembly Constituency in the district of Ranchi [now khunti] but was not declared elected by the returning officer. The father of the appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate, Sri Niral Enam Horo and prayed for setting aside the election of Sri Horo and further to declare him to be duly elected by filing election petition being Election Petition No. 2 of 1985(R), which was allowed vide order dated 26.05.1988 and the father of the petitioner was declared elected. 9. Accordingly, the father of the petitioner took oath as MLA on 12.09.1989 and worked till the date of dissolution of assembly i.e., 06.03.1990. 10. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner received salary from 12.09.1989 to 06.03.1990 but he was entitled to get the salary for the period from 06.03.1985 to 11.09.1989. 11. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner moved the high Court by filing CWJC No. 3660 of 19997(R), for salary of the period concerned as also the pension dues of the father of the petitioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2008, against which, intra-court appeal being LPA No. 47 of 2009 was filed which also stood dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2013. 12. The petitioner, thereafter, again moved two writ petitions one for salary of the deceased’s father and another for arrears of family pension but both of the writ petitions have been dismissed. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6338 of 2013 which was filed for payment of arrears of salary of the deceased father of the petitioner, which dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2015 on the ground that the writ petition is barred by constructive res judicata, against which the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 13. It is evident from the factual aspect that the father of the writ petitioner contested election in which initially he was declared not elected but later on after order having been passed in Election Petition No. 1 of 1985(R), which was allowed vide order dated 26.05.1988, he was declared elected. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner took oath as MLA on 12.09.1989 for the Torpa Constituency and worked till the date of dissolution of assembly i.e., 06.03.1990. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that his father received salary from 12.09.1989 to 06.03.1990 but as per order passed in Election Petition, he was entitled to get the salary for the period from 06.03.1985 to 11.09.1989, which was not given to the father of the petitioner during his lifetime. 15. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed writ petition CWJC No. 3660 of 19997(R), for salary for the period concerned as also the pension dues of the father of the petitioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2008, against which, intra-court appeal being LPA No. 47 of 2009 was filed which also stood dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2013 holding therein that the daughter has no locus standi to file the writ petition. 16. It further appears that instead of challenging that order in higher forum, the petition filed two separate writ petitions one for salary of the deceased’s father and another for arrears of family pension but both of the writ petitions have been dismissed. 17. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6338 of 2013 which was filed for payment of arrears of salary of the deceased father of the petitioner, which dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2015 on the ground that the writ petition is barred by constructive res judicata, against which the present intra- court appeal has been filed. 18. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 19. The fact about the order having been passed in earlier round of litigation, i.e., in CWJC No. 3660 of 1997(R), and confirmed in LPA No. 47 of 2009, which was dismissed taking the ground that daughter has no locus standi to file writ petition and further the writ petition filed by the mother of the petitioner also stood dismissed, has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. Therefore, this court is of the view that on the disputed basis of aforesaid facts, if the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the writ petition is barred by constructive res-judicata, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 21. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 22. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Alankar/ N.A.F.R