IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7745 of 2003
to
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 7791 of 2003
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO
Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?
————————————————————–
R.J. UPADHYAY TALATI - CUM - MANTRI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
————————————————————–
Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 7745 of 2003
MR ANANT S DAVE for Petitioner No. 1
MR NAGESH SOOD, AGP for Respondent No.1.
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent No.2, 3
MR MAHESH BARIYA for Respondent No.3.
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date of decision: 09/06/2003
COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT
These group of petitions is filed challenging the
notice issued by the Taluka Development Officer i.e.
respondent No.3 herein directing the petitioners to pay
the actual amount of L.T.C and twice the amount of L.T.C.
as penalty, failing which to take penal action and
prosecution. The said notice has been issued on the
premises that the amount of L.T.C. has been obtained by
producing false certificates of travelling, without
giving an opportunity of hearing.
2.This Court has issued notice for final hearing on
the respondents on 03.06.2003 making it returnable on
09.06.2003. After service of notice, learned AGP Mr.
Nagesh Sood appears on behalf of respondent No.1 and
learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Bariya appears on behalf of
respondent No.3 while nobody appears on behalf of
respondent No.2. Therefore, RULE. Mr. N.C. Sood,
learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Bariya
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent
No.3.. With the consent of all the learned Counsel for
the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing.
Since all these petitions are arising from the common
facts and issue involved is also common, they are being
dealt with together by this common judgment.
3.At the time of hearing of these petitions,
learned advocate Mr. Anant S. Dave, appearing on behalf
of the petitioners submits that in large number of
identical matters raised upon identical notices, this
Court has passed an order directing the respondents to
give suitable installments to the petitioners to pay the
amount of penalty subject to the payment of principle
amount within specified time limit and also subject to
filing appropriate undertakings. Learned advocate Mr.
Anant S. Dave has produced before me a copy of one such
order passed by this Court (Coram :- Jayant Patel, J.) on
28.03.2003 in Special Civil Application No. 1577/2003
and other allied matters.
4.After having heard the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties and after having
gone through the contents of the petition and the
documents attached therewith as well as after having
perused the earlier order passed by this Court, I am of
the view that the present group of petitions being
identical with the earlier matters, similar directions
are required to be given. Accordingly, following
directions are given.
4.1) All the petitioners shall file separate
undertaking to this Court that they shall not
raise any objection in future regarding the
recovery of the amount of penalty directly by
appropriating 33% of the salary and other
perquisites i.e. actual pay until they are in
service and they shall also not raise any
objection to the balance recovery to be made in
case the concerned petitioners are retiring in
normal course and they shall not raise any
objection for recovery of such amount from the
retiral benefits. The said undertaking shall
also include that the concerned petitioner shall
deposit the principle amount of LTC on or before
30.06.2003 and such undertaking shall be filed
within a period of two weeks from today before
this Court by each of the petitioners separately
and the copy of the said undertaking shall be
produced by the petitioners before the concerned
authorities.
4.2) The concerned petitioner shall also file
undertaking as per circular dated 3.10.1988
before authority on or before 25.06.2003.
4.3) If the principle amount of LTC is deposited on or
before 30.06.2003 and if such undertaking as per
above para 4.1 is filed before this Court and the
copy of the same is produced before the
authorities, and if further undertaking is filed
before concerned authority as per above para 4.2
then in that case, the authorities shall recover
twice the amount of LTC as penalty by directly
appropriating 33% of the actual pay of the
concerned employees and only 67% of the actual
pay shall be actually paid to the concerned
petitioners. Such recovery shall continue until
the amount of penalty is fully recovered and if
any of the concerned petitioners is retiring
before the amount is fully recovered, the
concerned authorities shall recover the said
balance amount from the retiral benefits
including the provident fund, gratuity, etc. by
directly appropriating towards the balance amount
of penalty.
4.4) Until the principle amount of LTC and the
penalty, as observed earlier, is fully recovered,
the authorities shall not take any action for
criminal prosecution or departmental inquiry
against the employees concerned as per circular
dtd. 3.10.1988. It is made clear that upon
failure of the concerned petitioners of
depositing the principle amount of LTC and upon
raising dispute regarding recovery of penalty
inspite of the aforesaid undertaking to this
Court and to the concerned authority the
aforesaid directions shall automatically stand
vacated in case of concerned petitioner and the
authorities shall be at liberty to lodge criminal
prosecution against the concerned petitioners in
accordance with law and the authorities shall
also be at liberty to take departmental
proceedings including that of suspension of the
employees concerned. The aforesaid liberty to
the employer/authorities shall be in addition to
the liability of the concerned petitioners, as
the case may be, for breach of the undertaking
and for the proceedings under the Contempt of
Court Act.
5.Though this Court has given the aforesaid
directions keeping in mind the earlier order passed by
this Court in similar such matters, it is high time to
take a serious view of the matter as no person is allowed
to claim L.T.C. from his employer without incurring such
expenses. The petitioners in these group of petitions
have surrendered themselves without facing any inquiry or
apprehended criminal proceedings, by agreeing to the
payment of the principle amount as well as the penalty
leviable on them. Since the petitioners have shown their
willingness to pay up the amount as demanded in the
notice, the Court is not expressing any opinion as to
whether the petitioners have in fact travelled or not and
since this Court has granted the benefit of payment by
installments and they were absolved from further
proceedings because of the said order, this Court
restrains itself from passing any order on that point so
as to give the similar treatment to the present
petitioners who are also put in similar set of
circumstances. The fact, however, remains that the Court
is deprecating the recurrence of such events in future.
6.All these petitions are disposed of in terms of
the aforesaid directions. Rule made absolute to the
aforesaid extent only. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(K. A. Puj, J.)
#Savariya#