The present petition is filed by one Dalpatram Kachrabhai Pandya, who died on 11.11.2010, awaiting the result of the litigation, which he initiated by filing Regular Civil Suit No.96 of 1976, challenging the order passed by the authorities dated 28.10.1975, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'A' to this petition, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground mentioned therein. It was further ordered that wages payable to the petitioner from the date of the accident occurred on 12.01.1975 till date of the order be adjusted against the damages caused to the jeep of the Department. 2. The facts of the case are certainly stranger than fiction. The deceased-petitioner was given appointment in Scarcity Division of Jilla Panchayat on 16th October 1974 in the pay scale of Rs.130 – 240/-. It was mentioned in the appointment order that appointment is for a period till scarcity continues. But in the meantime, on 12.01.1975 the petitioner while driving jeep of the Department met with an accident and he was admitted as an in-door patient till 7th February 1975, whereafter, as is contended by the petitioner he went to the Department requesting to allow him to resume duty, but he was not allowed to. He continued to persuade the Departmental officers to allow him to resume duty, but as that was not materialized he issued notice to the Department on 13.08.1975. It is after receipt of the said notice that order impugned dated 28.10.1975 came to be passed.
3. It is a matter, judicial notice of which can be taken that if the petitioner had met an advocate practising in High Court, the learned advocate would have advised him to file a writ petition, but as the petitioner happened to meet an advocate practising in civil court, he advised to file civil suit. Therefore, he filed Regular Civil Suit No.96 of 1976. It is no use commenting upon the competence or efficiency of the learned advocate at this stage, but as was prayed in the suit, the learned Judge decreed the suit in the following terms:
“It is hereby ordered and decreed that the impugned order of the Department dated 28.10.1975, Exhibit 75 is held to be illegal, invalid, prejudicial, arbitrary, against the provisions of Gujarat Panchayat Civil Services (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, against the principles of rules of natural justice, null, void, inoperative and not binding to the plaintiff and reserving liberty to authorities concerned to take action in accordance with law, the plaintiff is declared to be continued in service of defendants since 13.10.1974. The defendants to pay cost of the suit to the plaintiff and bear their own cost.”
4. It is mystery as to why this order was not challenged by the Department by way of appeal. Similarly, it is also a mystery as to why this order was not implemented and action was not taken against the petitioner in accordance with law. Be that as it may. The fact remains as on today that this order has achieved finality and the order remains unaltered by any higher forum. The petitioner, after waiting for some time, filed execution application being Regular Civil Execution Application No.22 of 1988 and the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhuj- Kachchh was pleased to reject that application for reasons recorded in judgment and order dated 31st July 2002. It is this order which is challenged by way of the present petition. It is during pendency of this petition before this Court that the petitioner has left for heavenly abode leaving his family members, who are now before this Court as heirs and legal representatives of the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.B.D. Karia submitted that the only ground on which the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has refused to entertain the execution application is that the decree is not in so many words granting any relief either of reinstatement or payment of back wages and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
6. The learned advocate for the respondent-Panchayat submitted that order dated 28th October 1975 is self explanatory and it is clear from the said order that the services of the petitioner were terminated for the conduct of the petitioner which is mentioned in the said letter/ order. It is the case of the Panchayat that on 12th January 1975 the petitioner drove the vehicle of the Panchayat on his volition and not under the orders of the higher authority. Not only that while driving, he met with an accident and thus, caused damage to the vehicle of the Panchayat. Therefore, even when the Panchayat has not challenged the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.96 of 1976, no relief can be granted to the present petitioner.
7. On careful consideration of the rival submissions of the learned advocates, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice will be met if instead of saddling the Panchayat with total liability arising from quashing of order dated 28th October 1975, as it is accepted that Scarcity Division came to be closed on 31st July 1975, the petitioner be awarded wages/ remuneration for the period from 12.01.1975 to 31.07.1975. Learned advocate Mr.Karia submitted that the amount will be too meagre to take care of the injustice meted out to the petitioner for all these years, more particularly, when the petitioner died while waiting for justice, in the year 2010. The Court is conscious of the fact that the Court cannot put the clock back. Therefore, the only relief which can be granted is that while granting wages/ remuneration for the period from 12.01.1975 to 31.07.1975, the amount be ordered to be paid in lump sum instead of calculating the amount in terms of rupees and paise. It is deemed proper to order the payment of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) in total, including wages and interest thereon, that will meet the ends of justice.
8. For arriving the said figure the amount claimed in the execution petition , viz. Rs.2200/- and odd is taken as the basis. If that is to be paid today, viz. with interest from 1975 to 2012, after period of about 37 years, said amount of Rs.75,000/- will be just and proper to the petitioner, more particularly, when the widow of the petitioner, who is working hard to survive and keep her soul and body together.
9. In the result the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
The respondent- Panchayat is directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) as early as possible, preferably by 31st December 2012. It is expected that learned advocate Mr.Munshaw will use his good offices while forwarding this judgement and order to the respondent-District Development Officer so as to take humane approach in the matter and to comply with the judgement and order at the earliest.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) karim