RAM ASHREY SINGH Vs. RAM BUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal challenge is to judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The dispute relates to entitlement of service and recital benefits of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the employee).

(2.) Factual background in a nutshell is as follows : Respondent No. 1-employee was employed as Lab. Assistant, a Class IV post, on 1-2-1973. On 8-11-1977 a show-cause notice was served on him detailing eight charges. By order dated 11-2-1978, his services were terminated by the then Principal holding that the charges were fully proved. Against the order of termination an appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the Committee of Management. After about 6 years the employee filed a representation before the prescribed authority under Regulation 21 of Chapter-III framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The same was dismissed by the District Inspector of Schools. A writ petition was filed by the employee which was registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13159 of 1984. By order dated 18-9-1991, the writ petition was disposed of directing payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/-. While making order the High Court, inter alia, noted that the employee had no aptitude for service, and if reinstated after such a long time, the peaceful atmosphere of the institution may be spoiled. The amount was directed to be paid within three months.

(3.) Employee filed a review petition in the High Court with a prayer to review the aforesaid order, on several grounds and also pointing out that the amount was not paid. Against the judgment of the High Court, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench by the employee. The High Court dismissed the review petition filed by the employee holding that the case for review was not made out. While dismissing the application for review it was noted that since the payment had not been made as directed, the employee was entitled to receive interest @ 12% per month till payment was made. It appears that there was a difference in perception of the authorities as to who was required to make the payment. The employee filed an application bringing it to the notice of the High Court that its orders have not been complied with. Application was filed by the Management of the present appellant No. 1-Principal of the Institution, for a direction to the State and the District Inspector of Schools to make the payment. The High Court disposed of both the applications directing District Inspector of Schools and the State to make the payment within a period of three months in the light of order dated 18-9-1991 modified by the order in the review application dated 3-2-1993. A contempt petition was filed by the employee alleging non-compliance of the order. The employee superannuated on 26-1-1995. On 20-9-1995 a sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with Rs. 2450/- towards interest, was paid. It is to be noted in the order dated 3-2-1993 the rate of interest was indicated to be Rs. 12% per month, which was later on corrected by order dated 15-5-1996 to read as "per annum". Direction was also given to pay the correct amount within a month. On 3-6-1996 a further sum of Rs. 9870/- was paid as the balance amount of interest. Against the order passed by the High Court, the employee filed Special Leave Petition before this Court (S.L.P. (C) No. 24287 of 1996). On 6-12-1996 a notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition on the limited question as to why the amount of compensation should not be enhanced. However, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as the special appeal before the High Court was pending. The Division Bench allowed the special appeal filed by the employee by directing reinstatement by the impugned judgment. It was noted that after five years also payment of the sum of Rs. 30,000/- was not made even though that was passed on consent. The said judgment of the Division Bench is under challenge.