IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 88/2001 Reserved on: 9.8.2011 Decided on:26.8.2011 _____________________________________________ Ram Lubhaya. …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ajeet Saklani vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Naresh K. Sood, Advocate for respondents No.2, 4 and 5. ___________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was engaged as a Pipe Fitter in the Beas Construction Board (hereinafter referred to as “B.C.B.” for brevity sake) in the month of October, 1966. He was dismissed on 12.2.1970. He filed CWP No. 66 of 1970 against his dismissal order dated 12.2.1970. The same was allowed by this Court on 21.7.1970. However, the petitioner was again terminated on 1.10.1976. He filed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 an appeal against the order dated 1.10.1976. The same was dismissed on 28.1.1977. Thereafter, he preferred CWP No. 58 of 1977 before this Court assailing order dated 1.10.1976. CWP No. 58 of 1977 was allowed by this Court on 20.7.1988. Letter dated 1.10.1976 was quashed and set aside. 2. In sequel to judgment dated 20.7.1988 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 58 of 1977, the petitioner was reinstated by the B.C.B. This position is also fortified by Annexure R-II dated 21.3.1989 at page 78 of the paper book. Petitioner was absorbed in B.B.M.B. on 27.2.1989 in terms of 2-C award of 1971. Petitioner was not paid the allowances, namely, medical allowance, Electricity Board Allowance, surrendered leave/earned leave encashment, special allowance and compensatory allowance. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1963 of 1995. It was decided on 12.11.1996. This Court held that the petitioner cannot seek the allowances, noted hereinabove, from B.B.M.B. However, the Court has permitted the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for the redressal of his grievance. He filed a representation and also served a legal notice on 27.2.1997. It was rejected by the B.B.M.B. on 27.11.1997 as per the reply filed by the respondents. 3 3. Mr. B.B. Vaid has strenuously argued that respondents are liable to pay the allowances to the petitioner as per legal notice served upon the respondents on 27.2.1997. 4. Mr. Naresh Sood has vehemently argued that as per judgment dated 12.11.1996 rendered in CWP No.1963/1995 whatever was to be paid by the B.B.M.B. has been paid and rest of the allowances fall within the domain of respondents No.1 and 3. 5. Mr. Ajeet Saklani has strenuously argued that nothing is due to the petitioner as far as respondents No. 1 and 3 are concerned. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. Order whereby the petitioner was terminated, i.e. dated 1.10.1976 was set aside by this Court in CWP No. 58 of 1977 on 20.7.1988. It is evident from the contents of Annexure R-II dated 21.3.1989, as noticed above, and from the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 3 that the petitioner was reinstated by the B.C.B. The absorption of the petitioner to the B.B.M.B was on the basis of award passed in 1971. He was permitted to join his duties in B.B.M.B on 27.2.1989. The back wages etc. have also been paid by the B.C.B. as per the contents of the reply. The petitioner in view of the judgment 4 rendered by this Court on 12.11.1996 in CWP No. 1963 of 1995 has no claim against the B.B.M.B. His claim is only against respondents No. 1 and 3 since at the time when the petitioner was terminated, he was employee of B.C.B. The petitioner has been prevented from discharging his duties. Had he not been terminated from service, he would have discharged his normal duties. Moreover, the effect of quashing the order dated 1.10.1976 by this Court was that he was entitled to all the consequential benefits since his termination was declared bad in law. Out of all the allowances claimed by him, as far as the Electricity Board Allowance is concerned, the same was payable by B.B.M.B. The petitioner has already been paid a sum of ` 1599.35 by the B.B.M.B. as far as Electricity Board Allowance is concerned. 8. Mr. B.B. Vaid has also argued that one Sh. Bal Krishan, junior to the petitioner has further been promoted to the higher post. It is averred in the reply that Sh. Bal Krishan joined in B.B.M.B. on 1.5.1979 and was regularized on 1.1.1988. Petitioner joined B.B.M.B. on 27.2.1989 and was regularized on 1.1.1990. Thus, Sh. Bal Krishan was senior as far as his seniority in B.B.M.B. was concerned. Moreover, Sh. Bal Krishan has sought conversion from the work charge to regular cadre 5 on 28.11.1988. Mr. B.B. Vaid has also argued that the petitioner has not been paid E.P.F. amount. It has come in the reply that an amount of ` 34,208/- stood paid to the petitioner on 25.11.1989. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to release the due and admissible medical allowance, surrendered leave/leave encashment, special allowance, compensatory allowance, which were payable to the employees of B.C.B. with effect from 1.10.1976 to 27.2.1989 within a period of three months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 26.8. 2011 *awasthi*