M R BATRA Vs. UHBVN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was for declaration to the effect that the orders of penalty dated 30.12.2002 and 20.8.2004, are wrong, illegal, null and void and he be granted consequential benefits and mandatory injunction to the effect that the Board be directed to pay arrears of pay of the suspension period w.e.f. 10.5.2002 to 14.11.2002 and all the retiral benefits due to him along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accrual till the date of realization. He also sought the reimbursement of the medical bills to the tune of Rs.67,000/- as submitted by him. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant to the effect that the orders dated 30.12.2002 and 20.8.2004 are illegal, null and void and he was held entitled to pay of suspension period w.e.f. 10.5.2002 to 14.11.2002 and also for retiral benefits due to him along with interest @ 6% per annum.

(2.) As regards the medical bills, the plaintiff was directed to submit his claim complete in all respect to the defendants within one month from the date of passing of the decree and thereafter the said claim was to be decided by the defendants within three months. However, on appeal, filed by the Nigam, Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide judgment dated 4.3.2011 observed that the plaintiff before knocking the door of the civil court should have exhausted the remedy available to him with the department and in the light of the said fact, civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In this regard, the court relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Transport and Dock Workers Union vs. Mumbai Port Trust, 2010 6 SLR 691 Virendra Mohan Kaushal vs. Bank of India,2010 5 SLR 253 and Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Haryana, 2008 3 SLR 233.

(3.) Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff had challenged the order of suspension as well as order of penalty based on the enquiry proceedings. Since the plaintiff has come to challenge some orders passed by the competent authority on the ground that same are in violation of the principles of natural justice and procedure as laid down under the Act, the same could not be said to be barred. The judgments relied upon by the court on Transport and Dock Workers Union's case are on different facts. The law relates to the non entertaining of the writ petition in the High Court unless appropriate remedy provided for is not availed. But the same are not applicable in the case of civil suit where the party challenged the said order as nonest, illegal and not affecting their rights of being a regular employee. Similar observations were made in case Sri Ramendra Kishore Biswas vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.,1999 1 ACJ 126 wherein it was observed as under :-