U.P. Power Corporation Ltd v. State Public Services Tribunal & Another on 10 Oct 2025

Judgment

]

1. Heard Shri Deo Raj Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 whereby, the punishment order dated 21.02.2002, the appellate order dated

27.01.2003 and the order dated 03.05.2007 passed in the mercy appeal had been set aside and direction had been issued to reinstate the petitioner in service but he had been denied the backwages.

3. It transpires from the documents annexed with this writ petition that the petitioner initially filed Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 challenging therein, the punishment order dated 21.02.2002, the appellate order dated 27.01.2003 and the order dated 03.05.2007 passed in mercy appeal and the said claim

petition was allowed and the orders challenged in the claim petition were set aside with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefits "except backwages". The 2 WRIA No. 8061 of 2019 operative portion of the judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 is extracted as under:- "The claim petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 21.02.2002 as well as appellate order dated 27.01.2003 and the order passed on mercy appeal dated

03.05.2007 contained as Annexure No. 1, 2 & 3 to the claim petition are hereby set aside. The Opposite Parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefits except back wages. Compliance of the orders be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

4. The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. challenged the order dated 09.09.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 by filing a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 1949 (S/B) of 2009, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. State Public Services Tribunal & Another; and the Division Bench of this Court finally disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 22.12.2009 whereby, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 09.09.2009 had been upheld on merit with modification and liberty was granted to the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. to proceed afresh in respect of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 22.12.2009 is extracted as under:- "In view of the above, while upholding the Tribunals judgment on merit we modify the same and give liberty to the petitioner to proceed afresh in accordance with law. In case, petitioner is advised to proceed afresh, then let a fresh inquiry be held in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months. Petitioner shall restore the claimant respondent in service with due salary in the light of the Tribunal's judgment forthwith. Subject to above, writ petition is disposed of finally."

6. Thus, from the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1949 (S/B) of 2009, it is apparent that this Court did not interfere with the order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the Tribunal to the extent it denied the backwages to the petitioner.

7. The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. challenged the judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1949 (S/B) of 2009 by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3141 of 2010 but the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 08.02.2010 dismissed the said Special Leave petition. It is note worthy that the present petitioner did not challenge the judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 at any stage and it, having been modified by the order of the Division 3 WRIA No. 8061 of 2019 Bench dated 22.12.20096 and dismissal of the Special Leave petition, became final.

8. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority in terms of the order dated

22.12.2009 passed by the Division bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1949 (S/B) of 2009 proceeded to hold fresh disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and passed punishment order dated 03.10.2011. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2013. The petitioner challenged the fresh punishment order dated 03.10.2011 and the appellate order dated 04.02.2013 by filing a Claim Petition No. 1521 of 2013 and the learned Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 20.08.2014 had allowed the claim petition and had set aside the punishment order and the appellate order. For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 20.08.2014 passed in Claim Petition No. 1521 of 2013 is extracted as under:- "यािचका स्वीकार की जाती है। ्ऺश्नगत् आदेश िदनांक-03.10.2011 (संलग्नक-1) व अपीलीय आदेश िदनांक 13.8.2012 (संलग्नक-2) एवं िनगरानी आदेश िदनांक-04.02.2013 (संलग्नक-3) अपास्त िकया जाता है। यांची उन समस्त पािरणािमक सेवा लाभों को ्ऺाप्त करने के अिधकारी होगा जो उसे इन दण्डादेशों के कारण ्ऺदान नहीं िकया गया है। िवप्षींगण को िनदरॏिशत िकया जाता है िक वे याची की जो वेतन वृि्धयां रोकी गई है उसे अवमु्व करते हुए उसके अवशेष का भुगतान इस िनणर्य की ्ऺमािणत ्ऺित ्ऺाप्त होने के 3 माह के अन्दर करना सुिनि्ात िकया जाय। सम्पूणर् आदेश का अनुपालन िनणर्य की सत्यािपत ्ऺित ्ऺाप्त होने के 3 माह के अन्दर करना सुिनि्ात िकया जाय। वाद ब्यय प्षकार स्वयं वहन करेंगे।"

9. At this stage, the petitioner again filed a Claim Petition No. 1746 of 2016 before the learned Tribunal inter alia praying therein for a direction for payment of backwages to him for the period from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of his reinstatement i.e. from 21.02.2002 to

06.03.2010. It is note worthy that the Claim Petition No. 1746 of 2016 filed by the petitioner was for the backwages which were denied to him vide judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 which stood final by the dismissal of the Special Leave petition by the Supreme Court.

10. The learned Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition No. 1746 of 2016 on the ground that the backwages claimed in the claim petition had already been denied to the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1746 of 2016 by filing a writ 4 WRIA No. 8061 of 2019 petition bearing Writ Petition No. 4964 (S/B) of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in following terms:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Petitioner has challenged order of termination dated 21.02.2002 in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 which was decided vide judgment dated 09.09.2009 and operative part of order reads as under: "The claim petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 21.2.02 as well as appellate order dated 27.1.03 and the order passed on mercy appeal dated 3.5.07 contained as Annexure No. 1, 2 & 3 to the claim petition are hereby set aside. The Opposite Parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefits except back wages. Compliance of the orders be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

3. Tribunal has not specifically passed order giving liberty to employer to proceed further with inquiry since it was found vitiated being in violation of principle of natural justice. The employer, i.e., U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 1949 (S/B) of 2009 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 22.12.2009 giving liberty to employer to proceed afresh in accordance with law and that order became final after dismissal of special leave petition by Apex Court. Thereafter claimant has filed another Claim Petition No. 1746 of 2016 claiming arrears of salary for the period of termination, i.e., 21.02.2002 to 06.03.2010 but this claim petition has been dismissed by Tribunal on the ground that back wages having already been denied vide order order dated 09.09.2009, petitioner cannot claim same relief by filing a fresh claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that order denying back wages having become final, in our view, Tribunal is right in observing that no fresh original application claiming back wages is permissible in law and hence Tribunal has rightly rejected petitioner's claim petition.

5. Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed."

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 14.03.2019 before this Court challenging therein the judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since punishment orders passed against the petitioner had been set aside by the learned Tribunal vide its different orders, he is entitled for the backwages for the period from 21.02.2002 to 06.03.2010, therefore, the judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1414 5 WRIA No. 8061 of 2019 of 2007, to the extent it denies the backwages for the period from 21.02.2002 to 06.03.2010, is liable to be set aside by this Court with a further direction to the respondents to pay the backwages.

13. Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the backwages for the period from 21.02.2002 to 06.03.2010 were denied to the petitioner way back i.e. vide judgment and order dated

09.09.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 and the denial of the backwages by the Tribunal had already been affirmed by Division Bench of this Court, as well as, Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner, at no point of time, ever challenged the order dated

09.09.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007, therefore, it is not open for him to challenge the same at this belated stage i.e. by filing a writ petition in the year 2019.

14. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that the judgment and order dated

09.09.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007, whereby backwages for the period from 21.02.2002 to 06.03.2010 were denied to the petitioner, had attained finality vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1949 (S/B) of 2009 and the order dated 08.02.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3141 of

2010. The petitioner, at earlier point of time, did not challenge the judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 to the extent it denied backwages to the petitioner, rather he after setting aside of the fresh punishment order filed Claim Petition No. 1746 of 2016 for the backwages which was dismissed, and ultimately, the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing Writ Petition No. 4964 (S/B) of 2017 had also been dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2017. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 06.03.2017 had categorically recorded that once the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 09.09.2009 denying the backwages, the learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner, thus, he is not entitled for the said backwages.

15. After passing of the order dated 06.03.2017 in Writ Petition No. 4964 (S/B) of 2017, petitioner had filed the present writ petition in the year 2019 wherein, for the first time he has challenged the judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 6 WRIA No. 8061 of 2019

2007. It is apparent from the face of record that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 09.09.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 at earlier point of time and the said judgment attained finality in view of the order dated 22.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1949 (S/B) of 2009, and the order dated 08.02.2010 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3141 of 2010.

16. We are of the view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 1414 of 2007 in the year 2019 by filing the present writ petition keeping in view that the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2009 had already attained finality in view of the judgment dated 22.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1949 (S/B) of 2009 and the order dated 08.02.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3141 of

17. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner is highly time barred and suffers from delay and laches.

18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find the present writ petition to be a fit case for exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. October 10, 2025 Lokesh Kumar (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench