State Of U.P . vs Baleshwar Singh .

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2023 INSC 1031 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3887-3890/2023

STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

BALESHWAR SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

This is an unfortunate litigation which arises out of

bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh into the State of

Uttaranchal, which was subsequently renamed as Uttarakhand, and the

State of Uttar Pradesh, by virtue of the provisions of the U.P.

Reorganization Act, 2000. Interestingly, the bifurcation was given

effect exactly 23 years back on 9th November, 2000. Today, we have

a case of the first respondent - Baleshwar Singh, who was

admittedly an employee of the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh and

who has been deprived of salary for a considerable long time and

retiral benefits though there was no fault on his part.

It is not in dispute that there was a policy of the Central

Government for mutual transfer. The communications to that effect

have been placed on record. On 25th September, 2007, the first

respondent - Baleshwar Singh, who was appointed on the post of

Assistant Conservator of Forest, gave his written consent opting Signature Not Verified

for posting in the newly created State of Uttarakhand. Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.11.29

The third 18:01:03 IST Reason:

respondent - Mahendra Pratap Singh gave his consent for posting in

1 the reconstituted State of Uttar Pradesh. He was also holding the

post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Ultimately, by consent of

the second respondent - State of Uttarakhand and the third

respondent - Mahendra Pratap Singh, a mutual transfer order dated

6th August, 2008, was issued by which the first respondent –

Baleshwar Singh was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand and the

third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh was allocated to the State

of Uttar Pradesh.

In September, 2008, letters were issued by the respective

Governments relieving the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh and

the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh. The first respondent

- Baleshwar Singh accordingly joined duty in the State of

Uttarakhand on 30th September, 2008. Then came a decision of the

High Court of Uttarakhand on 26th July, 2010. As a result of the

said order, the policy of the mutual transfer was set at naught.

As a result of which, the first respondent - Baleshwar Singh made

an application to the State of Uttarakhand to relieve him from

duty. On 5th April, 2011, the State of Uttarakhand directed the

first respondent – Baleshwar Singh to resume his duty in the

reconstituted State of Uttar Pradesh and a similar direction was

issued to the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh to resume

duty in the State of Uttarakhand. The third respondent – Mahendra

Pratap Singh by filing a writ petition, challenged the said order

in which the Allahabad High Court on 15th April, 2011 stayed the

order dated 5th April, 2011. This compelled the first respondent –

Baleshwar Singh to file a writ petition. We may note here that in

the petition filed by the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh,

2 on 28th May, 2012, the Allahabad High Court passed the following

order:

“The Circular dated 30.11.2011 be placed on record through supplementary affidavit to enable learned counsel for the other counsel to make their submission.

List on 11.7.2012.

In the meantime, without disturbing the petitioner of Writ Petition No.663 (S/B) of 2011, the State Government may permit Sri Baleshwar Singh, the petitioner of Writ Petition No.852 (S/B) of 2011, to resume duty which shall be subject to further orders passed by this Court.”

Admittedly, the first appellant - State of Uttar Pradesh never

abided by the said order. We may note that there was a review

application filed by the State, which was dismissed on 11 th June,

2012. The said review application was filed seeking review of the

aforesaid order dated 28th May, 2012 passed by the High Court of

Uttarakhand.

The net result of this situation is that the first respondent

– Baleshwar Singh was relieved by the State of Uttarakhand and

notwithstanding the order dated 28th May, 2012, the State of Uttar

Pradesh did not allow him to resume his duty. There was one more

development in the meanwhile. On 2nd April, 2013, final allocation

of personnel of Provincial Forest Service to the State of

Uttarakhand was published in which it was shown that the third

respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh was allocated to the State of

Uttarakhand.

By the impugned judgment, the petitions filed by the first

respondent – Baleshwar Singh and the third respondent – Mahendra

Pratap Singh were disposed of by the Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court. The effect of the said order is that the

3 posting of the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh in the

State of Uttar Pradesh and his promotion to the Indian Forest

Service was not disturbed and a direction was issued to the State

Government to pay salary to the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh

with effect from 9th April, 2011 till the date of promotion of the

third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh as ex-cadre employee and

from the date of promotion of the third respondent – Mahendra

Pratap Singh as against the cadre post. The State Government was

also directed to make payment of the current salary starting from

May, 2016 and the arrears of salary were ordered to be paid to the

first respondent – Baleshwar Singh within three months. A

direction was also issued that the first respondent - Baleshwar

Singh shall be entitled to regain his seniority on the basis of his

placement in the allocation order dated 30th/31st October, 2006,

which had been given effect from 9th November, 2006. Even

consequential benefits were also ordered to be given to the first

respondent – Baleshwar Singh, without disturbing the promotion

granted to the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh. It is

this order which is impugned in the present Appeals.

We may note here that there was an interim order passed by

this Court way back on 22nd August, 2016, by which a direction was

issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh to release all the retiral

benefits to the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh. There are

interlocutory applications filed on record which make a grievance

that though pensionary benefits were released, the same were

released on the footing that the date of superannuation of the

first respondent – Baleshwar Singh is 18th April, 2011. It is not

4 in dispute that the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh reached the

age of superannuation on 30th June, 2016.

We have heard detailed submissions made by the learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellants (State of Uttar Pradesh). His

submission is that a peculiar situation has been created under

which the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh has been

retained in the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh and at the

same time, the State is burdened to pay the salary and other

benefits to the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh. He places

reliance on the subsequent events.

After having carefully considered the submissions, we are

constrained to note that the default is on the part of the State of

Uttar Pradesh. There was a clear order passed on 28 th May, 2012

directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to permit the first respondent

– Baleshwar Singh to resume the duty subject to further orders

which may be passed in the writ petition filed by the third

respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Uttar

Pradesh tried to submit that the word ‘may’ has been used in the

said order which we have quoted above. However, the order, if read

in its entirety, makes it clear that the same enjoined the State of

Uttar Pradesh to permit the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh to

continue his duty with the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State of

Uttar Pradesh neither challenged the said order nor compiled with

the same. But, surprisingly, on 31 st October, 2012, it addressed a

letter to the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand

requesting that the order dated 5th April, 2011, issued by the

5 Forest Department of the State of Uttarakhand relieving the first

respondent – Baleshwar Singh be cancelled. To say the least, the

action of the State of Uttar Pradesh of addressing the letter dated

31st October, 2012 in the teeth of the order dated 28 th May, 2012,

amounts to making an effort to circumvent the order dated 28 th May,

2012. The propriety required the State of Uttar Pradesh to apply

either for modification of the order dated 28th May, 2012 or grant

of permission to request the State of Uttarakhand to accommodate

the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh. Neither was done by the

State of Uttar Pradesh. The said order continued till the passing

of the impugned order dated 19th April, 2016.

Therefore, considering the aforesaid conduct of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, it is impossible to find fault with the direction

issued by the Allahabad High Court to the State of Uttar Pradesh to

pay arrears of salary, etc. as directed therein to the first

respondent – Baleshwar Singh. We may record here that the first

respondent – Baleshwar Singh has suffered for no fault on his part.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent –

Baleshwar Singh pointed out that in the meanwhile, the first

respondent – Baleshwar Singh had to undergo liver transplant. The

interlocutory applications filed on record indicate that the

retiral benefits were released to the first respondent – Baleshwar

Singh in terms of the interim order by assuming that the he

superannuated on 18th April, 2011. Admittedly, the first respondent

– Baleshwar Singh reached the age of superannuation on 30 th June,

2016. We fail to understand why the State of Uttar Pradesh did not

comply with the interim order of this Court by releasing the

6 pensionary benefits on the footing that the first respondent –

Baleshwar Singh superannuated on 30th June, 2016.

In the circumstances, while dismissing the Appeals, with a

view to make complete justice, we direct the State Government to

release the salary and all other consequential benefits in terms of

the impugned order dated 19th April, 2016 to the first respondent –

Baleshwar Singh within a period of three months from today. The

said amount will carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from 30th June, 2016. In the event, the amount is not paid within a

period of three months from today, the first appellant - State of

Uttar Pradesh shall pay simple interest on the said amount at the

rate of 9% per annum.

As noted earlier, in terms of the interim order of this Court,

only a part of the retiral dues have been paid to the first

respondent – Baleshwar Singh. We direct the first appellant -

State of Uttar Pradesh to calculate the retiral dues payable to the

first respondent – Baleshwar Singh on the footing that he has

superannuated on 30th June, 2016. The balance amount payable to the

first respondent – Baleshwar Singh shall be paid within a period of

three months from today with simple interest thereon at the rate of

6% per annum from 22nd August, 2016 when the interim order was

passed by this Court.

On the failure of the first appellant - State of Uttar Pradesh

to pay the remaining retiral dues within the stipulated period of

three months, the simple interest payable will be at the rate of 9%

per annum.

If the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh is entitled to

7 reimbursement of medical expenditure incurred by him, on an

application made by the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh,

necessary amount be released to him in accordance with law within a

period of three months from today.

The Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. We direct the first

appellant - State of Uttar Pradesh to pay costs quantified at

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the first respondent –

Baleshwar Singh within a period of three months from today.

The Advocate-on-Record for the State of Uttar Pradesh, to our

surprise, expresses an apprehension that the observations made in

this judgment may be taken by the Government as a reflection on his

professional ability. The observations made in the judgment and

the direction to pay the costs are no reflection on the Advocate-

on-Record appearing for the appellants.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (PANKAJ MITHAL)

NEW DELHI;

November 09, 2023.

8