NAHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN award has been passed in favour of the petitioner for his reinstatement in service alongwith a direction to pay him backwages to the extent of 50%. The respondent -Management did not challenge the said award and acquiesced with it but curiously the Department of Irrigation deposited the amount of 50% of backwages in the General Provident Fund Account of the petitioner on the plea that the Department of Finance instructed it to do so. Inspite of persistent query from the counsel for the respondent Department of Irrigation, under what authority of law such an instruction could be issued by the Department of Finance to be followed by the Department of Irrigation regarding deposit of the backwages in the General Provident Fund Account of the petitioner contrary to his wishes, nothing could be elicited on behalf of the respondent except that there is an instruction to that effect from the Department of Finance for this purpose.

(2.) IT is clear that the amount payable to the petitioner is towards backwages which he has been held entitled to by the Labour Court against which there is no stay order or any appeal preferred by the Department of Irrigation. In view of this, it is beyond the comprehension of this Court as to how the Department of Finance or the Department of Irrigation can issue an instruction, as to how the money should be utilised to which the petitioner -workman is duly entitled so that it could be dealt with not as per instruction of the petitioner workman but by the Department of Finance or Department of Irrigation. A policy decision merely in regard to one employee as to how his backwages would be dealt with cannot be taken by the Department of Finance or Irrigation. Moreover, no policy decision has been brought to my notice in this regard. In view of this the action of the Department of Irrigation even if it has been done at the instance of the Department of Finance by depositing the amount of 50% of backwages in the General Provident Fund Account of the petitioner cannot be sustained. It is therefore, left open for the petitioner to represent before the Department of Irrigation disclosing how the money determined towards backwages to the extent of 50% has to be dealth with. It has brought to the notice of this Court that 50% backwages of the petitioner has already been deposited in the General Provident Fund Account of the petitioner. If the petitioner wishes to continue with the arrangement he may expressly say to before the Department of Irrigation and in case he wants to withdraw the same, he will be at full liberty to do so and no instruction of the Department of Irrigation or Finance, shall be allowed to go against the wishes of the petitioner -workmen. The writ petition under the circumstances, stands allowed but without cost