The case of 12 retired RPF petitioners-An order cannot be disregarded by a sundry officer of the government: High Court

Admin

Notional increment to be paid to those government employees who retired on 30th June and arrears will be paid from 01.05.2023

The petitioners would be entitled to costs, which court quantify at ₹50,000, payable by the respondents

“There is no Court above the Supreme Court, and once ajudgment is passed by their Lordships, it is the end of the road for both litigants”

“We caution Manoj Yadav, DG/RPF, Railway Board, to be careful in future while putting in his pleadings, which he must do after necessary legal advice, and not of his own commonsense, which appears to be the case here” -High Court

WRIT – A NO. 13305 of 2024 was filed by 12 retired #RPF personnel of #NERailway in Hon’ble High Court of Allahbad who issued a notice of motion vide order dated 31.08.2024, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani (supra), required the Director General, RPF, Railway Board, New Delhi to file his own affidavit, showing cause why notional annual increment applicable in case of each of the 12 petitioners has not been awarded and their post retire benefits revised accordingly.

In answer, Manoj Yadav, Director General, RPF, Railway Board, New Delhi has filed his own affidavit giving many reasons requested the Allahabad High Court that the instant W. P. No. 13305/2024 may be adjourned sine die and a final decision there on may only be taken as Review Petition and Intervention Application is filed by the nodal department viz. DOP&T in Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Allahbad High Court finds the stand of the Director General taken in the personal affidavit to be utterly illegal (सरासर गैरकानूनी), in fact, contumacious (अक्खड़) in one part of it. The stand, though carried in a long-winded pleading must be set out for every word of it reads but it is not open to any officer of the Government to say that the benefit of the Supreme Court’s judgment or compliance of the High Court’s order, if not stayed or set aside by the Supreme Court, will depend upon the policy decision of the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India.

The Government of India cannot sit in judgment on a writ of the Court, once issued. A writ stops only if it is stayed in competent proceedings, like an appeal, if allowed from the order or a review or a clarification or some such proceedings. An order cannot be disregarded by a sundry officer of the government (सरकारी सेवक), saying that he will disregard the law laid down by a Constitutional Court in a judgment, and more than that, a writ inter partes awaiting a policy decision of the Government.

It is all the more contumacious (अक्खड़) on the part of the Director General, RPF, Railway Board to say in paragraph No. 8 of the personal affidavit that “he is not in aposition to extend benefit of one notional increment to the petitioners who retired on the 30th June as per the judgment”.

The Director General (#DGRPF) has much harped upon (बात पर जोर दिया), the fact that the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani and M. Siddaraj (supra) have not attained finality, because an application for clarification, a review petition and an intervention application have been filed by the DOPT. After the Supreme Court passes a judgment, there is nothing not final about it. There is no Court above the Supreme Court, and once ajudgment is passed by their Lordships, it is the end of the road for both litigants.

Nevertheless, it is true that a litigant may apply for a review or clarification, as in this case. Invariably (निश्चित रूप से), for the principle of law laid down in a judgment by the Supreme Court not inter partes (पक्षों के बीच कार्यवाही), where a clarification has been sought by one of the parties, this Court would normally await the outcome of orders passed by their Lordships on the clarification application, but, pendency of the application does not entitle there spondents, including an officer of the said respondents, to say that they are not in a position to carry out the orders of this Court made following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, merely because clarification of ‘DOPT’ applications have been filed.

Most certainly, this Court is bound by the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and every officer of the respondent is bound to carry out every writ of this Court, unless it is set aside or stayed in appeal.

The contents of paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the personal affidavit filed by Manoj Yadav, Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board are contumacious (अक्खड़) in nature. “We would have issued a notice to show cause why this matter may not be directed to be laid before the Hon’ble Judge hearing contempt applications, but, in the totality of circumstances obtaining, we think that that course is not necessary”. All that needs to be done is that we-the high court-caution Manoj Yadav, Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, New Delhi to be careful in future while putting in his pleadings, which he must do after necessary legal advice, and not of his own commonsense, which appears to be the case here.

The current pension of the Applicants would be revised accordingly forthwith and all arrears would be paid to them with effect from 01.05.2023 within a period of three months of the date of communication of this order to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Govt of India, New Delhi, the Director General, RPF, Railway Board, New Delhi, the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. In the result, this petition succeeds and stands allowed.

A mandamus is issued accordingly. The petitioners would be entitled to costs, which we quantify at ₹50,000, payable by the respondents.

In this case of Notional increment to be paid to those government employees who retired on 30th June and arrears will be paid from 01.05.2023.

The final order was pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20 February, 2025.