IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2004 (S/S) Gyan Singh ………………Petitioner. Versus Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and others. ……….….Respondents. 21.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Heard Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the non-payment of consequential benefits after quashing of charges against the petitioner by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 322 (S/B) of 2002 and after the decision of writ petition no. 1282 of 2003 (S/S). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Semi-skilled worker (wire-binding) in respondents department. On 10.8.1988, an FIR was lodged under Section 379/411 I.P.C. against the petitioner, where it was stated that 1.5 Kgs copper has been found in the custody of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said FIR, a Case Crime No. 70/1988 was registered and the petitioner was arrested. Investigation was carried on and the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court on 22.8.1988. Thereafter, the Court of ACJM-II acquitted the petitioner from the above charges vide order dated 19.12.2000. Though vide order dated 17.8.1988, the petitioner was suspended and a charge sheet was served to him stating therein that he was guilty of stealing the company’s property, which is a misconduct. Thereafter, on 29.9.1988, one Arun Kumar, Manager (Production/Planning/EM) was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. According to the petitioner, he has raised an objection and made a prayer to withhold the inquiry, whereupon on 26.7.1989, the petitioner was informed that there is no reason to stop the enquiry. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court bearing CWP No. 23254 of 1989 Gyan Singh Vs. BHEL and another. In the said writ petition, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court was pleased to stay the departmental proceedings. After the formation of the State of Uttarakhand, the said writ petition was transferred to this Court and the same was registered as CWP No. 772 (S/B) of 2001. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation on 30.7.2001 requesting the respondents to look into the matter as he had been acquitted by the criminal court regarding the charges of theft. On 22.2.2002, respondent no. 3 issued an office order revoking the suspension of the petitioner and the petitioner was ordered to join his duties, but in the said order, the charged mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 17.8.1988 were held to be valid and binding upon the petitioner. Therefore, being aggrieved from that, the petitioner again preferred a Writ Petition No. 322 (S/B) of 2002. 6. On 22.4.2003, both the aforesaid writ petitions came up for hearing before this Court and this Court dismissed CWP No. 772 (S/B) of 2001 and further allowed the CWP No. 322 (S/B) of 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to respondents no. 1 and 2 along with certified copy of the orders requesting them to pay him the consequential benefits, but to no avail. However, when the petitioner was not heard, he filed a contempt petition before this Hon’ble Court being Contempt Petition No. 184 of 2003 Gyan Singh Vs. Sri V.K. Kapur and another, which was dismissed by this Court on 12.9.2003 observing that in consequence of this Court’s order, the petitioner is not entitled to seek consequential benefits of pay etc. as he has not been granted any relief of pay in the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application. The said review application was dismissed on 25.9.2003 by observing that the petitioner should have filed a separate writ for the relief of consequential benefits as mentioned in the order of this Court in Contempt Petition No. 184 of 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner again preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No;. 1282 of 2003 (S/S). On 23.10.2003, this Court passed an order directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to the consequential benefits. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court but instead of deciding the same, respondent authorities on 16.1.2003 issued a letter to the petitioner to get the orders corrected as certain dates were transcribed wrongly due to typographical error. 7. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued another letter on 24.12.2003 denying the consequential benefits to the petitioner pertaining to the period of suspension. Therefore, aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 8. I have gone through the records. In the earlier writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 1282 of 2003 (SS), same relief was claimed but the same was not granted, therefore, present writ petition is barred by the principles of constructive resjudicata and no relief in fresh writ petition relating to consequential benefits can be granted. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioner otherwise falls into the zone of consideration, he shall be considered for future promotion and if he has retired, notional promotion shall also be considered. 10. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 21.7.2008 Rathour