l Leave Petition Civil No 4460 of 1993
From the Judgment and Order dated 1511993 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 566 of 1990
Arun Jaitley and Maninder Singh for the Petitioner
The following Order of the Court was delivered How statutory bodies waste public money in fruitless litigation to satisfy 479 misplaced ego is demonstrated by this petition
The opposite party was appointed as Sales Girl by the petitioner a cooperative society registered under Cooperative Societies Act running a Super Bazar in Shimla
When one of the managers came there on transfer her trouble started
Apart from insult humiliaton and harassment thrust on her that manager terminated her services illegally without being authorised to do so and without obtaining permission of the Administrator and without giving any notice or hearing her
The opposite party who had been apprising her superiors of that manager s misbehaviour and of her apprehensions that he was out to get rid of her although was assured not only of his good behaviour and security of her services immediately took recourse to legal action
To her misfortune the Assistant Registrar decided her case after seven years
It was held by him that the order of termination was illegal arbitrary and was passed without obtaining approval of the Administrator
He directed the petitioner to reinstate her but did not grant any back wages
Even with this order which was prejudicial to her the opposite party was satisfied but the ego of petitioner was hurt
For eight months the order was not implemented by the petitioner as it was contemplating to file the appeal
And when the petitioner succeeded in obtaining the order it informed the opposite party that her Joining Report could not be entertained
Since then the opposite party has been knocking at the door of the petitioner but she was made to approach the appellate authority the revising authority the High Court the Labour Court and finally the High Court again as the petitioner did not succeed anywhere but went on filing appeal and revision forcing the opposite party to file cross appeal or revision or even writ for her back wages and other benefits
Not one authority even in the cooperative department found in favour of petitioner
Yet the petitioner had the obstinacy not only to approach this Court but to place the blame of inordinate delay on adjudicatory process
Such obstinacy without the least regard of the financial implications could only be indulged by a public body like the petitioner as those entrusted to look after public bodies affairs do not have any personal involvement and the money that they squander in such litigation is not their own
Sri Arun Jaitley the learned senior counsel attempted to assail the finding recorded by the High Court and the Labour Court
Suffice it to say that the conclusions arrived at are not only well reasoned but are based on material on record and could not be demonstrated to be vitiated by any error of Law
Having failed to persuade us on merits the Learned counsel attempted to highlight the financial difficulty of the petitioner and placed reliance on Surendra Kumar Verma  Ors
vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court New Delhi  Another 19804 SCC 443 in support of the submission that 480 the Courts while directing payment of back wages should exercise discretion considering the financial viability of the employer
It was urged that the respondent has been pursuing her remedy for 16 years therefore the petitioner whose profit margin is very low and the overhead expenses are very high resulting in accumulation of losses for which financial assistance has been granted by State as well as the Central Government for rehabilitation subject to the condition that the amount shall not be utilised towards past debts shall be rendered in serious predicament brought upon it by the respondent for which it is not responsible
Nothing is farther than truth
It was other way round
In fact it was the petitioner who had disputed the finding of the Registrar directing reinstatment without back wages and made respondent to run from court to court
When the petitioner did not reinstate her and filed an appeal she too filed a cross appeal for back wages
It is more than apparent that it was the petitioner who was not complying with the orders passed by the authorities from time to time and was leaving no stone unturned to see that an illegal order passed by its officer was upheld
We therefore do not see any justification for exercising discretion in favour of such a litigant
Public money has been wasted due to adamant behaviour not only of the officer who terminated the services but also due to cantankerous attitude adoped by those responsible for pursuing the litigation before the one or the other authority
They have literally persecuted her
Despite unequal strenght the opposite party has managed to survive
We are informed that the opposite party has been reinstated
This was put forward as bonafide conduct of petitioner to persuade us to modify the order in respect of back wages
Facts speak otherwise
Working life of opposite party has been lost in this tortuous and painful litigation of more than twenty years
For such thoughtless acts of its officers the petitioner society has to suffer and pay an amount exceeding three lakhs is indeed pitiable
But considering the agony and suffering of the opposite party that amount cannot be a proper recompense
We therefore dismiss this petition as devoid of any merit and direct the petitioner to comply with the directions of the High Court within the time granted by it
We however leave it open to the society to replenish itself and recover the amount of back wages paid by it to the opposite party from the personal salary of the officers of the society who have been responsible for this endless litigation including the officer who was responsible for terminating the services of the opposite patty
We may clarify that the permission given shall have nothing to do with the direction to pay the respondent her back wages
Step if any to recover the amount shall be taken only after payment is made to the opposite party as directed by the High Court
SLP dismissed


Summary:
The appellant in Civil Appeal No481 of 1983 and thousands of other families known as Chakmas migrated from the erstwhile East Pakistan to Assam where they were given shelter as refugees in 1964
In the year 1966 the Government drew up the Chakma resettlement Schemes whereunder they were allotted lands within the North East Frontier Agency which later became State of Arunachal Pradesh
The appellant and 56 other Chakma families strayed away from the original settlement area and negotiated with the local Raja who through an unregistered deed donated land to them inside the inner line which was a protected area under the Foreigners  Protection Area Order 1958
Later the State Govenment received complaints that the 402 Chakmas were making encroachment on lands of local people indulging in illegal collection of arms and ammunition and establishing contacts with the extremist groups
An inquiry into the matter was directed
The Government found it necessary to shift them and by order dated 1521984 directed the appellant and the other Chakma families to vacate the land and to shift to the original settlementarea where other Chakma families were already residing
The appellant challenged the order before the High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed
However the High Court on humanitarian grounds directed the State Government to give adequate compensation to the Chakmas
Both the appellant and the State Government filed the appeals by special leave
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant and the other Chakmas being of Indian origin and having returned to Assam State in 1964 would be entitled to citizenship under Section 6A of the  and by mere accident of their going to Arunachal Pradesh they cannot lose their citizenship and that the order dated 1521984 besides being against the principles of natunal justice was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it infringed the rights of the appellant and other Chakmas under Articles 191 d and e of the Constitution
Dismissing the appeal on behalf of the Chakmas and allowing that of the State this Court HELD  11 The appellant and other Chakmas residing in Arunachal Pradesh long before 1985 cannot be regarded as citizens of India
420 H 12 Under Section 6 A of the  which was incorporated by the Amending Act 1985 as a result of Assam Accord two conditions are required to be satisfied 1 Persons of Indian origin undivided India who came before 111966 to Assam from the specified territory and 2 they have been ordinarily resident in Assam as it existed in 1985 since their date of entry in Assam
411 G H 412 A 13 Though the appellant and other Chakmas were of Indian origin and came to Assam prior to 111966 from the then East Pakistan one of the specified territories but in 1966 they shifted to the area within North East Frontier Agency which later became State of Arunachal Pradesh and at no time was part of the Territory of the State of Assam though was being administered by the Governors of Assam or the President of India as the case 403 may be
Besides bt the  the territories of Arunachal Pradesh were excluded from the purview of the Immigrants Explusion from Assam Act 1950
The appellant and the other Chakmas were residing in Arunachal Pradesh long before 1985 and as such cannot be said to be ordinarly resident in Assam as it existed in 1985 since their date of en try in Assam
420 A F Smt
Shanno Devi vs Mangal Saini   relied on
14 If the law lays down certain conditions for acquiring citizenship the same cannot be disregarded
421 A Kennedy vs Mendoza Martinez  159 1963 referred to
Arstotle Politics III 5 referred to
2The place where the Chakma families are residing is within the inner line notified by the State Government
The place is the protected one under the Foreigners Protection Area Order 1958 wherein acquisition of any land or any interest thereon by any foreigner is prohibited as envisaged by clause section 7 of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873 and Clause 92 of the Foreigners  Order 1948 issued under Section 3 of the 
410 DE 22Accordingly the donation deed through which the Raja gave land to the appellant and the other Chakmas is illegal421 D 23Unlike article 21 rights under Articles 191 d and e of the Constitution are unavailable to foreigners because these rights are conferred only on the citizens and are expressly withheld to foreigners
The machinery of Article 14 cannot be invoked to obtain that fundamental right424 E Indo China Steam Navigation Co vs Jasjit Singh 19646 SCR 594 at 621 to 622 followed
Louis De Raedt vs Union of Indian   referredto412 CD 404 31 Settling the Chakmas in a particular place is a matter of policy
This Court cannot enter into the wisdom of such a policy
Besides the reasons for shifting the Chakma families are  they are in illegal occupation of the protected are they are indulging in procurement of arms and anununitions and other criminal activities they are associating with anti social elements and have been source of constant trouble to the local tribals
Arunachal Pradesh being a Border State is stategically important 424B 423EFG 4
In the instant case the principles of natural justice were fully complied with
It cannot he said that the order dated 1521984 for shifting the Chakmas came to be issued like a bolt from the blue 
The record mentions that before passing of the shifting order notice after notice were issued to chakma families to return to their original place of settlement
Survey Reports for their settlement were submitted and representation were made to the authorities concerned who gave oral hearing to the representatives of Chakmas
412 GH Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association vs State of Karnataka 19912 SCC 604 inapplicable
R vs Secretary of Stale for the Home Department  Brind vs Secretary of State   Council of Civil Service Unions vs Minister for the Civil Service   McInnes vs onslow Farme  Anr D p 219 JR Vohra vs India Export House pvt
Ltd   Maharashtra State Board of Secondary  Higher Education vs KS Gandhi and Satya Vir Singh vs Union of India  referred to
51 In view of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873 and Clause 92 of the Foreigners Order 1948 the acquisition of the land being illegal the instant one is not a case for award of compensation
426 C 52 However having regard to the statement made on bahalf of the State that the Chief Minister is ready to hear the Chakmas an opportunity be afforded to them by the Chief Minister who may grant such relief as may be deemed fit
It is made clear that it will be a post decisional hearing
426 D 405 Blackburn and Taylor on the right to enjoy asyum in Hussan Rightsior the 1990s Equality and Discrimination under International Law  by Warwick Mckean referred to