1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him benefit of selection grade, promotional pay scale in compliance of the judgment dated 24.05.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.294(S/B) of 2000 and also entire arrears of salary and consequential retiral benefits along with interest at the rate of 18%.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:
3. The petitioner was appointed as Collection Amin in the year 1957. He was suspended on 30.06.1982. A charge sheet was issued on 30.06.1982 containing four charges alleging that the petitioner is guilty for misconduct of dereliction of duty, doubtful integrity, lack of devotion of duty and embezzlement of the amount collected from defaulters, in exercise of his duty as Collection Amin. On completion of departmental enquiry, which was conducted ex parte, observing that petitioner did not respond to the charge sheet by submitting reply, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur who is disciplinary authority of the petitioner, passed an order of punishment of dismissal on 03.10.1982. Petitioner's appeal against the dismissal order was dismissed by Commissioner, Gorakhpur vide order dated 07.09.1983. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision before Board of Revenue, which too, was rejected as communicated by Joint Secretary of Board of Revenue to the Commissioner vide letter dated 14.05.1985. Aggrieved thereto, petitioner assailed dismissal order and consequential appellate order before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.225/I/1986. The claim petition was dismissed by Tribunal vide judgment dated 19.11.1997 whereagainst petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.294(SB) of 2000, wherein, a Division Bench of this Court held that enquiry report was submitted without fixing any date for oral inquiry and without giving any opportunity to defend, hence the entire proceedings are illegal. Vide judgment dated 24.05.2004, the Court quashed the order of punishment dated 03.10.1982 as also the judgment of Tribunal. Operative part of the judgment reads as under:
"We, therefore, quash the impugned order of punishment dated 3.10.1982 and the order dated 19.11.1997 passed by the Tribunal. Since the petitioner has retired from service about 14 years back, there is no occasion for this court to order of holding a fresh enquiry. The petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits, as such.
The petition is allowed. No order as to costs."
4. Since the petitioner was not granted all consequential benefits, hence he preferred a Contempt Petition No.1381(C) of 2005, in which, notices were issued and thereafter the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur passed an order for payment of arrears of salary for the period of October 1982 to July 1989. Since the petitioner attained age of superannuation in July 1989, therefore, arrears of salary was paid till date of retirement of petitioner. Subsequently, retiral benefits were also paid.
5. The respondents, however, did not consider petitioner's claim for grant of selection grade and promotional pay scale which became available to him in view of the G.O. Dated 3rd June, 1989 whereby benefits had been given w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The petitioner made representation dated 28.06.2006. Despite that, nothing has been done.
6. Learned Standing Counsel pleaded, since "consequential benefits" would not include benefit of arrears etc., therefore, the same was not granted. In the alternative, he contended that service of petitioner was not satisfactory, which is condition precedent for grant of selection grade or promotional grade, hence petitioner is not entitled for the same.
7. The first question, therefore, would be as to "what the term "consequential benefits" means, and, secondly, "whether it would cover the claim of petitioner for consideration of selection grade and promotional pay scale".
8. The word "consequential" would mean that flowing as a 'consequence' or a 'corollary'. The dictionary describes 'corollary' as a proposition which can be inferred from one already proved as self evidently true i.e., a natural consequence or result, the benefit or advantage or entitlement under an arrangement.
9. In this regard, I find support from the Apex Court's decision in R.M. Ramaul Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, AIR 1991 SC 1171. Therein the dispute of seniority was decided in favour of R.M. Ramaul but there was no further direction in the Court's order with respect to consequential benefits, promotion or monetary benefits etc. His seniority was restored, whereupon, it was found that junior was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager w.e.f. 28.05.1982. Sri Ramaul was considered and promoted w.e.f. 28.05.1982. His period of promotion from 28.05.1982 to 03.09.1986, i.e., the date of actual promotion, was treated to be a notional promotion without any benefit. This denial of monetary benefit was held invalid and in consistent to the ultimate decision. The Apex Court observed as under:
"The withholding of the monetary benefits in respect of this period is inconsistent with what was decided in the judgment and what complainant was clearly entitled to. Since there was no specific direction in this behalf in the order, technically, there may be no case for punishment for contempt; but we make it clear that the promotion for the period from 28-5-1982 to 3-9-1986 should be accompanied by the monetary benefits."
10. The Court further found that R.M. Ramaul also became eligible for promotion to the post of Additional General Manager on 05.05.1987, on which date, one of his junior, N.K. Sharma was already promoted. The Court directed that as a fall-out of restoration of seniority, R.M. Ramaul would also be entitled to be considered for further promotion to the post of Additional General Manager and, if found fit, it would be notional promotion for the period the post remained in existence, since subsequently post was abolished, and hence no monetary benefit shall be made from the date the post was abolished.
11. This judgment clearly fortifies the view, I am taking, that when a person, having gained in a Court of law, has been deprived certain benefits by the employer for its own fault, cannot be placed in a situation of loser of something for which, he is not responsible. In the present case, the Court has specifically directed that consequential benefits shall also be available to petitioners. Nothing has been shown to this Court that consequential benefits would not include monetary benefits of all kinds.
12. The next question now would be, "whether petitioner is entitled to be considered for grant of selection grade and promotional pay in the light of G.O. Dated 3rd June, 1989".
13. The respondents in the counter affidavit have pleaded that the work and conduct of petitioner was not satisfactory, hence he is not entitled for selection grade or promotional grade under G.O. Dated 3rd June, 1989. However, it is not the case of respondents that at any point of time, petitioner's case has been considered for such grant by any competent authority.
14. With regard to the question that the petitioner was not found fit for grant of selection grade and promotional scale, I find nothing on record to show that the competent authority actually has considered him for grant of such benefits.
15. The respondents have not stated in the counter affidavit that the competent authority considered the claim of petitioner at any point of time for the purpose of grant of selection grade or promotional pay scale, as the case may be, in the light of G.O. Dated 3rd June, 1989 and found him unfit for such benefit. In the counter affidavit, though it has been stated that petitioner's service was not satisfactory but whether this aspect has been found on consideration, by the competent authority, is not stated anywhere. Without considering the claim of petitioner for such grant by the competent authority, it was not open to the respondents to contest the petitioner's case by stating on their own that petitioner's service was not satisfactory. No material has been placed on record as to how the respondents found that petitioner's service was not satisfactory from October 1982. The petitioner has not actually worked in the department having been ousted, pursuant to an order of dismissal which was ultimately found illegal and set aside by this Court. Prior to that, service record of petitioner whether contain good, bad or otherwise entry has not been disclosed or shown anywhere and, therefore, it is difficult to accept that petitioner's service was not satisfactory, particularly when this aspect was not considered by competent authority and no order is said to have been passed thereupon.
16. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
17. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The competent authority is directed to consider the claim of petitioner for grant of selection grade and promotional grade, as the case may be, in the light of G.O. Dated 3rd June, 1989 and pass a reasoned order within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case petitioner is found entitled for such benefit, all consequential benefits, like refixation of pay, arrears etc. would be computed and shall be paid within two months thereafter.
18. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only).
Order Date :-24.09.2014 P/AKN