HARYANA HARIJAN KALYAN NIGAM LTD Vs. SUDESH JUNEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition filed by the respondent-widow for release of the arrears of salary due to her deceased husband having been accepted by the learned Single Judge, the Nigam and its Managing Director have filed this Letters Patent Appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) MR . H. K. Juneja was working as a District Manager with the Haryana Harijan Kalyan Nigam Limited, his services were terminated by an innocuous order passed on March 6, 1987. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3960 of 1987. This petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated January 4, 1989. It was found that the order had really been passed on the ground that Mr. Juneja "had involved himself in dishonest transactions". It was further found that "the authorities had elected to institute an enquiry. . . . . " A charge sheet was issued to the officer. Subsequently, without conducting an enquiry, the Nigam had decided to get rid of the officer "by removing him from service by passing an innocuous order". The learned Single Judge found that the order had in fact been passed by way of punishment", Resultantly, the writ petition was allowed. The order dated March 6, 1987 was quashed.

(3.) AFTER the acceptance of the writ petition, Mr. Juneja had submitted his joining report to the Nigam. Vide order dated April 25, 1991 he was permitted to join. He had actually resumed duty on April 29, 1991. He represented for the release of arrears of salary and the other dues with effect from the date of termination viz. March 6, 1987. Vide letter dated October 10, 1991 he was informed that the period since his termination had been regularised as leave of the kind due and that no arrears were to be paid as there was no direction from the High Court. Before any thing could be done to challenge this order, Mr. Juneja, unfortunately, expired on December 6, 1991. Thereafter the widow, Smt. Sudesh Juneja, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5564 of 1992 with a prayer that the order dated October 10, 1991 be quashed and the respondents be directed to release the dues. This writ petition having been accepted by the learned Single Judge, the respondents have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.