Allowed

Jharkhand State Electricity Board Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Secretary v. Indramajit Pandey

Jharkhand HC1 Sept 2021LPA/558/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electricity board's appeal against a direction to fix a retired employee's pension on the Controller pay scale although his promotion to that post had been declared invalid. Allowing the appeal, the court limited pension to the Assistant Controller scale, directed payment of gratuity, permitted penal rent to be charged for over-retention of a quarter, and granted liberty to challenge the invalidat

What did the court decide?

Pensionary benefits attached to the post of Assistant Controller with consequential benefits; gratuity payable within three months; no recovery from the respondent; liberty to the appellants to charge

Jharkhand State Electricity Board Now… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

[1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No.558 of 2019

¶4

With

¶5

I.A. No.2053 of 2021

¶6

Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) through Secretary (Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) having Office at Engineering Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

¶7

The Chief Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having Office at Engineering Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having Office at Engineering Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

¶9

The General Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited), having Office at Engineering Building, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

¶10

… … Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Indramajit Pandey, son of Late Hardeo Pandey, resident of C/oPravin Kumar, Ar. No. DN-52, Janta Nagar Patratu Thermal Power Station, P.O. and P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh.

¶13

… … Respondent

¶14

Accountant General, Jharkhand (A&E), Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶15

… … Proforma Respondent

¶16

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶18

------For the Appellants : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate --------------------------

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

10 / Dated 01^st September, 2021

¶21

[2]

¶22

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever about any audio and video quality.

¶23

I.A. No.2053 of 2021:

¶24

The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 332 days in preferring the instant appeal.

¶25

No counter affidavit has been filed, however, orally it has been contested but after going through the contents of the interlocutory application filed for condonation of delay, we find ourselves satisfied and considering the ground to be sufficient as also in order to go into the merit of the lis, we deem it fit and proper to condone the delay in preferring the instant appeal, accordingly, the delay of 332 days in filing the appeal, is condoned.

¶26

In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of.

¶27

L.P.A. No.558 of 2019:

¶28

The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1480 of 2016.

¶29

The brief facts of the case as per the pleading required to be enumerated are as hereunder:

¶30

The writ petitioner-respondent was appointed as Operator in the Patratu Thermal Power Station under the then Bihar State Electricity Board vide Office Order No.1312 dated 07.04.1976 and he continued to work on the said post.

¶31

[3]

¶32

The writ petitioner-respondent claims to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Controller on rendering eight years of regular service, as required, but not promoted, however, was allowed to work as Assistant Controller against the vacant post vide Office Order No.104 dated 14.12.1990 which was subsequently approved by the Office of the General Manager vide Order No.206 dated 28.07.1987. He rendered his services while working as Assistant Controller for sixteen years in officiating capacity and after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the writ petitioner-respondent was promoted to the post of Controller vide Notification No.898 dated 28.04.2009 which was issued on the basis of the Office Order No.740 dated 11.12.1991. Accordingly, his pay scale was also revised vide Notification No.1181 dated 09.03.2010 and his pay was fixed to the post of Controller vide Office Order No.1194 dated 07.07.2012. Further, he was entitled to get the benefit of three upgradations under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme as per the Resolution No.2492 dated 12.05.2010 but was not given and his pay scale was fixed to the pay band of 9300-34800 + Grade pay Rs.5500/- which increased to 31750/- vide Office Order No.482 dated 16.11.2012.

¶33

The writ petitioner-respondent, while working as such, was served with a show cause notice as contained in Resolution No.975 dated 15.02.2013 asking him to reply as to why the promotion granted in his favour to the post of Controller be not cancelled which was granted without completion of tenure as required. The writ petitioner-respondent has given response to the

¶34

[4]

¶35

said show cause but without taking any decision, his pension has been attached to the post of Assistant Controller as also the gratuity has not been paid, therefore, he approached to this Court by filling writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

The writ petition has been decided in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent with a direction upon the respondents to release the pension on the basis of the last pay drawn, i.e., attached to the post of Controller, as also the gratuity along with interest @ 5% per annum and so far as the MACP is concerned, decision must be taken within six weeks and if the writ petitioner-respondent is found entitled, benefits shall be extended to him within next four weeks, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal.

¶37

The matter was heard on 24.07.2021, an issue was raised on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent to the effect that even if the order having been passed in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent in the writ petition, the appellants have taken a decision contrary to the direction of the learned Single Judge, therefore, we have passed an order on that date to bring on record the aforesaid order. Pursuant thereto, order dated 31.12.2020 has been brought on record by filing an interlocutory application being I.A. No.3643 of 2021.

¶38

The aforesaid interlocutory application has been responded by the appellants whereby and whereunder it has been stated that the order dated 31.12.2020 has been withdrawn.

¶39

[5]

¶40

Upon such submission made in response to the aforesaid interlocutory application, Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent, has submitted that he is not raising the said issue further.

¶41

Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact which has been brought to the notice by filing counter affidavit on 30.08.2018 whereby and whereunder the promotion of the writ petitionerrespondent has been held to be bad and illegal and in that view of the matter, the specially constituted committee for the purpose of fixation of pension has decided to fix the pension along with others on the basis of the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Controller as would be evident from the communication dated 18.05.2018 enclosed with the decision of the committee holding therein the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitionerrespondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid but very surprisingly the same has not been taken into consideration and direction has been passed to release the pension on the basis of the last pay drawn, i.e., attached to the post of Controller but according to him, once the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitionerrespondent to the post of Controller has been held to be bad/invalid, he cannot get pension on the basis of the pay scale attached to the post of Controller, however, a decision has been taken not to make any recovery as would be evident from the decision of Board of Directors dated 18.05.2018.

¶42

[6]

¶43

His further contention is that the order since has been brought to the notice before the writ Court by way of counter affidavit filed on 30.08.2018, the writ petitioner-respondent ought to have questioned the said decision but very surprisingly the aforesaid decision declaring the promotion of the writ petitionerrespondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid, has not been questioned, therefore, he has got no legal right to claim his pension attached to the post of Controller and so long the said decision is operating he will not be entitled to get the pay scale attached to the post of Controller rather he will be entitled to get the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Controller and the learned Single Judge has not considered these aspects of the matter, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly, the same may be quashed and set aside.

¶44

So far as the contention related to payment of gratuity is concerned, the same is also not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11025 of 2020 [M/s Steel Authority of India ltd. vs. Raghbendra Singh and Ors.] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity.

¶45

Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitionerrespondent has submitted that the decision of the authority declaring the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to

¶46

[7]

¶47

the post of Controller as bad/invalid has never been communicated to the writ petitioner-respondent and that is the reason the aforesaid decision has not been challenged before the competent forum. He has further referred to paragraph-26 of the submission made in the counter affidavit dated 30.08.2018 wherein it has been stated that the reply filed by the writ petitioner-respondent in pursuance to the second show cause notice dated 15.02.2013 which was the subject matter of the writ petition, has not yet been taken, which, according to him, suggests that as on the date of passing of the order by the learned Single Judge there was no decision declaring the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid.

¶48

So far as the issue pertaining to disbursement of the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is concerned, submission has been made that the Payment of Gratuity Act does not provide for penal rent even in case of unauthorized occupation of quarter and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge is correct in passing direction upon the payment of gratuity along with interest @ 5% per annum.

¶49

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The issues which fell for consideration before this Court are:

¶50

(i) Whether the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to get benefit of pension attached to the post of Controller which has been held to be bad/invalid;

¶51

[8]

¶52

(ii) Whether the plea of the writ petitioner-respondent that the order declaring the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent attached to the post of Controller as bad/invalid, since has not been communicated to him by the appellants concerned, and the plea which is being taken for denial of pension on the basis of the pay scale attached to the post of Controller, will be said to be acceptable;

¶53

(iii) Whether the writ petitioner-respondent will be held to pay penal rent on the ground of occupation of quarter beyond the authorized period.

¶54

Since all the issues are interlinked, therefore, all are

¶55

being taken together but before answering the same, it requires to refer certain admitted facts as per the pleading made on behalf of the parties.

¶56

It is the admitted fact that the writ petitioner-respondent was appointed as Operator and subsequent thereto, was allowed to work on the post of Assistant Controller w.e.f. 14.12.1990. It is further admitted fact that initially he has not been granted regular promotion to the post of Assistant Controller rather he has been allowed to discharge his duties to the said post in substantive capacity but has subsequently been granted promotion to the post of Controller and while working as such, he got superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.06.2013.

¶57

The writ petitioner-respondent while in service was served with a show cause notice dated 15.02.2013 asking him to reply as to why

¶58

[9]

¶59

the promotion granted in his favour to the post of Controller be not cancelled. He has furnished his reply but on the garb of pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, the pension of the writ petitionerrespondent has not been fixed on the basis of pay scale attached to the post of Controller, therefore, he approached to this Court invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein following reliefs:

¶60

“1. That by way of this writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing of letter No.976 dated 15/2/2013 whereby and where under learned Joint Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board has been pleased to inform the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Controller without completing the tenue which is totally unconstitutional and wrong;

¶61

2. Further an appropriate writ/order/direction for fixing the pension of the petitioner as after his retirement the pension of the petitioner has not been fixed and the provisional pension is being paid to the petitioner;

¶62

3. The petitioner further prays for sanction of MACP as the petitioner had retired from his service on 30.06.2013 without availing the benefit of MACP;

¶63

4. A direction be issued to the Accountant General, Jharkhand for fixing of pension of the petitioner and calculation and payment of gratuity to the petitioner;

¶64

5. Any other appropriate writ/order/direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

¶65

The order passed by the learned Single Judge has been questioned by the appellants on the ground that the writ petitioner-respondent cannot be held entitled for the pay scale attached to the post of Controller since his promotion has been held to be bad/invalid, therefore, ground has been taken that once the promotion of the writ petitioner-respondents to the post of the Controller has been treated

¶66

[10]

¶67

to be bad/invalid, he cannot be allowed to get pension attached to the said post even though he has superannuated from the service by rendering his service as Controller.

¶68

Further, the issue pertaining to payment of gratuity, objection has been made to the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the concerned appellant is entitled to recover the penal rent on account of occupation of quarter beyond the authorized period and to buttress his argument, he has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11025 of 2020 [M/s Steel Authority of India ltd. vs. Raghbendra Singh and Ors.]

¶69

While on the other hand Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent has vehemently opposed such submission on the ground that the order declaring the promotion of the writ petitioner-respondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid has never been communicated, therefore, the learned Single Judge has considered that aspect of the matter and passed an order for fixing the pension on the basis of the pay attached to the post of Controller.

¶70

He further submits that the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to get the benefit of gratuity on the basis of the legal position as stipulated under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶71

This Court, therefore, is first answering the question raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent with respect to

¶72

[11]

¶73

non-communication of the order declaring the promotion to the post of Controller as bad/invalid.

¶74

There is no dispute about the settled position of law that an order, if not communicated, cannot take the shape of an order but herein the matter is otherwise because the counter affidavit which was filed on behalf of the appellants before the writ Court dated is 30.08.2018 wherein decision of the Board of Directors dated 18.05.2018 has been enclosed referring the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid but even after receiving the copy of the counter affidavit, no effort was made by the writ petitioner-respondents to assail the same by filing appropriate application before the writ Court, therefore, the submission which has been made on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent that unless the order declaring the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid is not communicated, the said order cannot come in the way of fixation of pension on the basis of the pay scale attached to the post of Controller, is having no foundation, accordingly, rejected.

¶75

Further, the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition by passing order in favour of the writ petitionerrespondent ought to have considered the averment made in the counter affidavit wherein specific stand has been taken by enclosing the document to the effect that the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the post of Controller to be bad/invalid and basis upon which, pension of the writ petitioner-

¶76

[12]

¶77

respondent has been fixed attached to the post of Assistant Controller but that document has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, therefore, according to our considered view, gross error has been committed because if the learned Single Judge would have considered the said document, the learned Single Judge would not have passed such direction by fixing the pension in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent attached to the post of Controller.

¶78

Further, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion about pendency of the proceeding in pursuance to the second show cause notice which led the learned Single Judge to pass such direction in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent but that illegality has again occurred due to non-consideration of the decision of Board of Directors dated 18.05.2018 declaring the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid.

¶79

There is no dispute about the fact that full pension is to be granted and pendency of the proceeding will not come in the way but in the case in hand the fact is otherwise since herein the final decision has been taken as would be evident from the decision of the Board of Directors dated 18.05.2018 which could not have been appreciated by the learned Single Judge basis upon which the finding has been recorded in the impugned order that pendency of the proceeding will not come in the way of fixation of final pension.

¶80

Further the aforesaid principle will not be applicable since there is no departmental proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner-respondent as would be evident from the second show

¶81

[13]

¶82

cause notice dated 15.02.2013 wherein straightaway on the basis of the enquiry report, the second show cause notice has been issued but the fact remains that the decision has already been taken by the concerned authority which necessitates the writ petitionerrespondent to question the same by filing appropriate application and since it has not been questioned, the decision of the Board of Directors declaring the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid will be operative against the writ petitioner-respondent and once it will be operative, he cannot claim any benefit on the basis of pay scale attached to the post of Controller.

¶83

Admittedly, the writ petitioner-respondent cannot be said to be at fault in getting promotion to the post of Controller giving a right to the appellants to make any recovery as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe at para-18 which is

¶84

being reproduced as hereunder:

¶85

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶86

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

¶87

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶88

[14]

¶89

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

¶90

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

¶91

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”

¶92

Thus, this Court, hereby, directs the concerned competent authority that there shall not be any recovery from the salary/pension of the writ petitioner-respondent on the garb of declaration of promotion granted to him to the post of Controller as bad/invalid for the reason that there is no misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner-respondent rather it is the conscious decision of the concerned authority allowing the writ petitionerrespondent to discharge his duty to the post of Controller and subsequently as also granted promotion to the post of Controller, hence, there cannot be any recovery in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (supra).

¶93

Now the question would be that if the promotion to the post of Controller has been declared to be bad/invalid, can he be allowed to get the pension attached to the post of Controller. The answer of this Court would be in negative on the basis of the principle that if any error has occurred in decision making process and if it has come to the notice of the authority, the same is to be struck down immediately on the basis of the principle that illegality cannot be

¶94

[15]

¶95

allowed to be perpetuated as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Chaman Lal Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2014) 15 SCC 715 , referring the decision rendered in Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisitioin Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81 ] at paragraph 16, has held as under:

¶96

“ 16. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer [Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 : AIR 2014 SC 746] considered this issue and held as under: (SCC p. 85, para 8)

¶97

“8.It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745] , Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana [Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164] , K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. [K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581] and Fuljit Kaur v.

¶98

[16]

¶99

State of Punjab [Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455] .)”

¶100

In Union of India v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC

¶101

750 , at paragraph 32 it has been laid down as hereunder:

¶102

“32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore statutory rules.”

¶103

Thus, it is the settled position of law that illegality cannot

¶104

be allowed to be perpetuated and if, in such circumstances, this Court will allow the writ petitioner-respondent to get the pensionary benefit on the basis of the pay scale attached to the post of Controller, the same will lead to allowing the illegality to perpetuate since the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitionerrespondent to the post of Controller, at the moment, is in dispute.

¶105

This Court has further shown reason to interfere with the order impugned because the same learned Singe Judge has taken contrary view with respect to the cases of similarly situated employees whose names are mentioned in the list appended to the Minutes of Meeting of Board of Directors dated 18.05.2018 as would appear from the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.3673 of 2017 annexed as Annexure-C to the reply to the interlocutory application being I.A. No.3643 of 2021 filed on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent.

¶106

[17]

¶107

So far as the issue pertaining to payment of gratuity is concerned, the learned Single Judge has directed for disbursement of the amount of gratuity along with interest @ 5% per annum.

¶108

The learned Single Judge has delved upon the issue that the writ petitioner-respondent has not vacated the quarter, by going through the statutory provision as contained in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 where there is no such provision for withholding of gratuity in case of unauthorized retention of quarter by the retired person but the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the Payment of Gratuity Act is statutory right and once the statutory right has been conferred upon one or the other, it is accepted and it is the duty of the beneficiary to have a bona fide approach and herein the bona fide approach of the retired person making him entitled to get the benefit of gratuity would be that beyond the admissible period, after superannuation, he has got no right to retain the quarter and if the quarter is being retained, he is to pay rent for the same and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11025 of 2020 [M/s Steel Authority of India ltd. vs. Raghbendra Singh and Ors.] has been pleased to hold therein that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. The part of the said judgment is being reproduced as hereunder:

¶109

“………..

¶110

We, however, set aside the observations made in paras 19 and

¶111

21 qua the principles of penal rent being charged as we are of the

¶112

[18]

¶113

view that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. This is so in view of the judgment in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier-(2005) 5 SCC 245 and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil Appeal No.4740/2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced as is not even a judgment but an order in the given facts of the case.”

¶114

This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances as referred hereinabove, is of the view that the instant intra-court appeal is fit to be allowed, accordingly, the instant intra-court appeal is allowed and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the following direction:

¶115

(i) This Court in the ends of justice deem it fit and proper that liberty is required to be given to the writ petitionerrespondent to assail the order declaring the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid before the appropriate forum.

¶116

In view thereof, it is left to the writ petitioner-

¶117

respondent to question/assail the decision of the competent authority declaring the promotion granted in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent to the post of Controller as bad/invalid, if so advised.

¶118

This Court is further passing following directions modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that:

¶119

(i) The writ petitioner-respondent will be entitled for his pensionary benefits attached to the post of Assistant

¶120

[19]

¶121

Controller along with all consequential benefits, i.e., upgradation in the pay scale either ACP or MACP, if any, which shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order;

¶122

(ii) The post retiral benefits including pension gratuity and other dues of the writ petitioner-respondents will depend upon the final decision of the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent pertaining to promotion to the post of Controller if such litigation will be preferred as per the liberty granted above;

¶123

(iii) The amount pertaining to gratuity shall be paid by the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order;

¶124

(iv) The appellants would be at liberty to charge penal rent on account of retention of the quarter beyond the specified period, if any.

¶125

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.08.2018 in W.P.(S) No.1480 of 2016 is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove and the appeal stands allowed.

¶126

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

¶127

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶128

Saurabh / A.F.R.

Jharkhand State Electricity Board Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Secretary v. Indramajit Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jharkhand State Electricity Board Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Secretary v. Indramajit Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Sachidanand Nath Sahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nityanand Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Khublal Mandal Vs Central Coal Field Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Ritika Goyal Vs State of Jharkhand Represented through Its Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare

Union of India through the General Manager South Eastern Railway Vs Kumari Dinu Bhengra

Gayatri Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary