Haryana
State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors Vs. G. S. Uppal & Ors [2008]
INSC 655 (16 April 2008)
R. V. Raveendran & Lokeshwar Singh Panta REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9244 OF 2003 W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9239 OF
2003 Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors. .....
Appellants Versus Chakrawarti Garg ..... Respondent W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
9248 OF 2003 Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors.
..... Appellants Versus A. S. Dhir ..... Respondent Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. These appeals, by special leave, filed by Haryana State Minor Irrigation
Tubewells Corporation & Others are directed against the common judgment
dated August 22, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal No. 725/1993 and Civil Writ Petition No.
5946/1994 and Civil Writ Petition No. 834/1996.
2. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and
order dated May, 18, 1993 of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.P. No.14200/1993 and allowed C.W.P. No. 5946/1994 filed by Chakrawarti Garg and
C.W.P. No. 834/1996 of A.S. Dhir, respondents herein.
3. These appeals are similar in nature and they involve identical questions
of law and facts and, therefore, they are being decided by this common
judgment.
4. The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals are that the
respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 9244/2003 and 9248/ 2003, at the time of filing
of the writ petitions, were working on the post of Sub-Divisional Officer
(SDO), Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE) and Assistant Engineer (AE) with the
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the
Corporation') appellant No. 1, which is a Government company, within the
meaning of that expression under the Companies Act, 1956.
The respondent in C.A. No. 9239/2003 was working as Law Officer with the
Corporation. State of Haryana exercises deep and pervasive control over the
Corporation. Secretary, Irrigation Department; Secretary, Agricultural
Department; Secretary, Finance Department, to the Government of Haryana;
Chairman, Haryana State Electricity Board and Chief Engineer (Canals),
Irrigation Works, Haryana, were the exclusive shareholders in the Corporation
at the time of its formation in the year 1970. The Corporation was carved out
of the Irrigation Wing of the Public Works Department and since its inception
in the year 1970, a number of officers have been appointed to different posts
by way of deputation. There were about 27 SDOs on deputation from the
Irrigation Department working in Corporation whose nature of duties and
responsibilities were similar and identical to the nature and duties of the
SDOs working in the equivalent post of Corporation. Their duties were
inter-changeable and as such it was the case of the respondents before the High
Court that there was no difference whatsoever between the duties and
responsibilities expected to be shouldered by a deputationist and by an
employee of the Corporation. The respondents pleaded before the High Court that
there was no qualitative difference between the duties and responsibilities of
persons employed on the posts of SDOs, SDEs, AEs in various departments of
Haryana Government, such as Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads),
Public Health Departments, various Corporations, Haryana State Electricity
Board, Haryana Urban Development Authority and several other Boards. Rule 5.1
of Part
V of the Service Bye-Laws of the Corporation reads as under:-
-
"Each post in the Corporation will
carry a time scale of pay, the present pay scale being indicated in Appendix II.
-
The pay scale is subject to revision by the Board, which will, however,
generally follow the pattern adopted by the Government of Haryana from time to
time."
5. The Corporation ever since its inception in the year 1970 has been
following the pay scales of the employees of the Haryana Government as revised
from time to time in respect of all categories of its employees. As noticed
earlier, initially, when the Corporation was formed, almost the entire Engineering
staff right from the rank of Chief Engineer to the rank of AEs/SDOs/SDEs was
taken on deputation from the Irrigation Department of the State Government till
the Corporation recruited its own cadre of AEs. Qualifications and experience
for recruitment and promotion to the ranks of AEs, SDOs, Executive Engineers,
Superintending Engineers and Chief Engineers are the same as in the Irrigation
Department. All those employees who came on deputation on whatever post, were granted
pay scales as revised by the Haryana Government from time to time for the
Engineers in the Government Departments, like PWD (B & R), Public Health
and Irrigation Department. Keeping in view these facts, pay scales of employees
of the Corporation including those of Engineers were revised with effect from
01.04.1979 and 01.01.1986 on the pattern of revision of pay scales approved by
the Haryana Government for its employees. The revision of pay scales with
effect from 01.01.1986 was also approved by the Pay Revision Committee (PRC)
constituted by the Haryana Government for revision of pay scales of the
employees of various public Undertakings/Boards/Corporations in its meeting
held on 21.09.1988. Revision of pay scales were made applicable to the
Engineers in the Corporation w.e.f. 01.01.1986, but thereafter the Haryana Government, while removing certain
anomalies in the pay scale of the Superintending Engineers, further revised the
pay scales of SEs of PWD (B & R), Public Health and Irrigation Department
from Rs.3700-5000/- to Rs. 4100-5300/- vide Finance Department letter
No.6/38/3PR(FD) -27 dated 16.05.1989. By another letter of the said Department
No. 6/38/PR dated 02.06.1989, salaries of other Engineers, such as
AEEs/AEs/SDOs/SDEs (Class-I and Class-II) were also revised with effect from
01.05.1989 by way of removal of anomalies. The Board of Directors of the
Corporation in its 94th meeting held on 18.08.1989 decided that in view of the
parity in pay scales that had been maintained in the past between the
Corporation and their counter parts in the Haryana Government Departments,
which was approved by the Finance Department, may be recommended to the Public
Enterprises and Investment Cell of the Finance Department, Haryana, for their
concurrence. The names of the posts, their existing and revised pay scales are
tabulated as below:- Name of the Post Existing Scales of pay Revised Scales of
Pay Superintending Engineer Rs. 3700-5000 Rs. 4100-5300 Engineers
AEE/AE/SDO/SDE (Class I & II) Rs.2200-4000 Rs.2000-3500 Rs.2200-4000
Rs.3000-4500 (After 5 years of regular service) Rs.4100-5300 (After 12 years of
regular service)
6. The Haryana Government once again modified pay scales of the Engineers
vide letter dated 16.05.1990 with effect from 01.05.1989 as under:- Name of the
Post Existing Scales of pay Revised Scales of Pay Engineers AEE/AE/SDO/SDE
(Class I & II) Rs.2200-4000 Rs.2000-3500 (After 5 years of regular service
Rs.4100-5300 (After 12 years of regular service) Rs.2200-4000 Rs.3000-4500
(After 5 years of regular satisfactory service) Selection Grade Rs.4100-5300
(After 12 years of regular satisfactory service) limited to 20% of the cadre
posts.
7. The Board of Directors of the Corporation considered and approved the
adoption of the above modified scales of pay w.e.f. 01.05.1989 in respect of
the Engineers of the Corporation in 97th meeting held on 25.06.1990, subject to
the concurrence of the Finance Department. It was further resolved that any
further amendment/modification made by the Haryana Government in the pay scales
of the Engineers may also be made applicable in respect of the Corporation
employees, subject to the concurrence of the Finance Department. The proposal
of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for revision of pay scales of the
Corporation Engineers was sent to the Finance Department and in the said
proposal, it was brought to the notice of the Standing Committee that the
revised pay scales had already been granted to the Engineers of the Haryana
Urban Development Authority and that of the Haryana State Electricity Board.
The proposal was placed before the Standing Committee in its meeting that was
held on 28.05.1992, which approved the pay scales in a selective manner. The
revision in the pay scales of the Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers,
Circle Head Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved, whereas
the revision of pay scales of the AEs/SDOs/SDEs was postponed and it was
decided that the matter would be examined separately by the Finance Department.
The claim of the respondents with regard to the revision of pay scales,
however, was not taken up by the Standing Committee. The respondents submitted
repeated representations but they could not get any relief and the respondents
were left with no option but to file the writ petitions before the High Court.
8. The Corporation contested the claim of the respondents before the High
Court by filing written statement wherein it has been pleaded that the
respondents are seeking revised pay scales on the pattern of Engineers of three
wings of PWD of the State Government. The proposal of the Corporation for
revision of pay scales of engineering staff was placed for consideration of the
Standing Committee in its meeting held on 15.11.1991. The decision taken in the
aforesaid meeting reads thus:
"It was decided to constitute a Sub- Committee comprising of Member
Secretary, Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises; Managing Director, Haryana
State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation and Joint Secretary Finance (Pay
Revision) to review the entire staffing pattern along with pay scale of
CORPORATION. Based on the recommendations of the Sub-Committee, the Corporation
could submit a fresh proposal for consideration of the Standing Committee, if
need be."
The meetings aforesaid of the Sub-Committee were held on 16.01.1992 and
6.02.1992. Minutes of these meetings containing recommendations of the
Sub-Committee were placed for consideration of the Standing Committee in its
meeting held on 28.05.1992 wherein it was decided as under:- "The revision
of pay scales of posts of AEE/AE/SDO/SDEs was postponed and it was decided that
the matter will be examined separately by the Finance Department."
It has further been stated that as the matter was under active consideration
and had not been finally decided by the Finance Department, no cause of action
arose to the respondents and, therefore, the writ petition being premature was
liable to be dismissed on that sole ground. The main defence of the Corporation
in its written statement before the High Court was that there has been a revision
of pay scales of Engineers of three wings of Public Works Department only of
the State Government who have to carry out more arduous duties under different
conditions and constraints because of the development activities undertaken by
the State under its phased programme and time-bound schedule, whereas the
Engineers employed by the Corporation have been discharging normal routine
duties. It was contended that the Corporation is running under loss and because
of its financial position, the Corporation is not in a position to equate the
pay scales of its Engineers, Law Officers and other employees equivalent to the
Engineers of the three wings of PWD and other employees working on the
equivalent posts of the State Government.
9. The learned Single Judge, allowed the Writ Petition No. 14200/1993 which was the subject-matter of LPA No. 7525/1993 before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and
held as under:
"In view of the above, it is held that the action of the respondents in
not granting the revised scale of pay to the petitioners with effect from May
1, 1989 suffers from the vice of discrimination and is violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. The next contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners related to the jurisdiction of the Government to
interfere in the affairs of the Corporation. The contention is not wholly
without merit. However, in view of my decision on the first question, it does
not appear to be necessary to examine this matter in detail.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
It is held that the petitioners will be entitled to the revised scales of
pay with effect from May 1, 1989 as has been granted to the persons working in
the Corporation by way of deputation or in the Public Works Department of the
Government. The needful shall be done within 4 months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. They will be entitled to all consequential benefits.
In case, the needful is not done within the aforesaid time, the petitioners
shall be entitled to the payment of arrears, etc.
along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accrual to the date of
actual payment. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs."
10. Being aggrieved, the Corporation carried the matter in intra-court
appeal before the Division Bench. During the hearing of Letters Patent Appeal,
a copy of the final decision taken by the Government had been handed over to
the Bench vide which the Finance Committee of the Government decided that pay
scales of the Engineers along with the doctors of Health Department and Deputy
Superintendents of Police were further revised. It has also been clarified that
the revised pay scales, so far as engineers were concerned, were applicable to the
Engineers of PWD (three wings) only. Shri Chakrawarti Garg, Law Officer working
with the Corporation, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5946/1994 and Shri A.S.
Dhir, SDO of the Corporation filed Civil Writ Petition No. 834/1996 before the
Division Bench of the High Court claiming revision of pay scales at par with
the other employees discharging same and similar duties and responsibilities at
equivalent posts with the State Government, Boards and Corporations. The
Division Bench by impugned order dated August 22, 2001 dismissed the Letters
Patent Appeal of the Corporation and allowed the Civil Writ Petitions filed by
Shri Chakrawarti Garg and Shri A.S. Dhir respondents herein. Hence, the
Corporation and others have filed these appeals questioning the correctness and
validity of the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants, vehemently contended that the pay scales of the respondents could
not be compared and equated with the Engineers and other employees of the three
wings of the PWD and other employees of the State Government. He submitted that
there is apparent difference between the duties, responsibilities and
reliability of the Engineers working in the three wings of Public Works
Department as they have to work under difficult conditions and constraints
because of the developmental activities as compared to those Engineers working
in the Corporation. As such, the findings of the High Court granting different
pay scales to the engineers and other employees of the Corporation in violation
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be justified and
sustained. It was also urged that mere fact that on two earlier occasions, pay
hike to the engineers of the Government Departments attracted an equal pay hike
for the Engineers employed with the Corporation is no guide that may
conclusively show that nature and duties of the two sets of employees were the
same. The weak financial position of the Corporation is also being pressed into
service during the course of arguments for denying the relief that has been
granted to the respondents by the High Court.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General, in support of his submissions,
placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in State Bank of India &
Anr. v. M.R. Ganesh Babu & Ors. [2002] 4 SCC 556; State of Haryana v.
Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [2002] 6 SCC 72 and Union of
India v. S.B. Vohra [2004] 2 SCC 150.
13. We have gone through these decisions of this Court. In State Bank of
India's case (supra), this Court held that equal pay must depend upon the
nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may
be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be same but the responsibilities make a difference. Often the
difference is a matter of degree and there is an element of value judgment by
those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and
other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide,
reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the
object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to
discrimination. The judgment of administrative authorities concerning the
responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability
expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities
concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, is not
open to interference by the court.
14. In S.B. Vohra's case [supra], this Court dealing with the fixation of
pay scales of officers of the High Court of Delhi (Assistant Registrars) held
that the fixation of pay scales is within the exclusive domain of Chief
Justice, subject to approval of President/Governor of the State and the matter
should either be examined by an Expert Body or in its absence by the Chief
Justice and the Central or State Government should attend to the suggestions of
the Chief Justice with reasonable promptitude so as to satisfy the test of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, it was observed that
financial implications vis-a-vis effect of grant of a particular scale of pay may
not always be a sufficient reason and differences should be mutually discussed
and tried to be solved.
15. In State of Haryana's case (supra), this Court held that the High Court
was in error in allowing the parity in pay scale to State Civil Secretariat PAs
with Central Secretariat PAs merely because the designation was same, without
comparing the nature of their duties and responsibilities and qualifications
for recruitment and without considering the relevant rules, regulations and
executive instructions issued by the employer and governing the cadre
concerned.
16. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in
the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination
of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial
review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it
is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere with the
administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they
find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of
employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. [see K.T.
Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406].
17. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Raj Kumar
Gupta and Shri A.N.Bardiyar appearing for respondents in C.A. Nos. 9244/03 and
9248/03; Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Advocate appearing for respondents in C.A. 9239/2003, in support of the judgment of the Division Bench, contended that
no exceptions can be taken to the well- reasoned judgment recorded by the
Division Bench of the High Court. They submitted that the Division Bench has
analysed in great detail the factual situation and legal proposition covering
the field of controversy, therefore, there is apparently no infirmity or
perversity in the judgment impugned in these appeals inviting interference by
this Court.
18. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for
the parties, we have scrutinized the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court in the backdrop of the factual situation of the case as well as in the
light of the principle enunciated in the above-cited decisions.
19. It is well-settled that the State can make reasonable classification if
it has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is admitted position
in the present case that posts of SDOs/SDEs/AEs can be filled up by the
Corporation by any one of the three known methods, namely, direct recruitment,
on promotion or by transfer/deputation. Once a person is appointed to a post in
a particular cadre, the source of his recruitment or the method of his
appointment becomes irrelevant. The Corporation has framed its Service Bye-Laws
and by virtue of Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws, each post in the
Corporation will carry a time scale of pay; the present pay scale being
indicated in Appendix-II and further that the pay scale is subject to revision
by the Board, which will, however, generally follow the pattern adopted by the
Government of Haryana from time to time. The employees of the Corporation,
since its inception in 1970, had been getting the same pay scales as that of
the employees of the Haryana Government and the Board of Directors having
already equated the pay scales of the Engineers of the Corporation commensurate
to the pay scales of the Government employees, but the State Government has not
concurred with the decision of the Board of Directors. By virtue of Clause
81(v) of the Memorandum of Association of the Corporation, the Directors of the
Corporation in their discretion have powers to appoint, remove or suspend such
Managers, Secretaries, Officers, Clerks, Agents and Servants of permanent,
temporary or special services, as they may from time to time think fit, and to
determine their powers and duties and fix their salaries or emoluments and to
require security of such amount as they think fit in such instances. The power
to fix the salaries or emoluments of the employees of the Corporation, thus,
specifically rests with the Directors of the Corporation and by virtue of Rule
5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws, as mentioned in the earlier part of the
judgment, the Corporation had favourably considered the claim of the
respondents by recommending the same scales for them, as were being given to
their counterparts in the service of the Government Departments. The proposal
of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for revision of pay scales to its
employees came up before the Standing Committee in its meeting held on
28.05.1992 and the Standing Committee approved the pay scales in a selective
manner. The revision in pay scales of the Superintending Engineers, Accounts
Officers, Circle Head Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved,
whereas the revision of pay scales of the respondents, who are AEs/SDOs/SDEs,
was postponed and it was decided that the matter would be examined separately
by the Finance Department.
20. The State of Haryana in its written statement filed before the High Court
admitted that although the technical qualifications of incumbents on the posts
of AEs/SDOs/SDEs in various Government Departments, Boards and Corporations are
identical, yet the nature of duties and responsibilities, quantum of workload
and level of technical expertise involved do vary from organization to
organization depending upon the nature of activities undertaken by the
respective organizations. It is further contended that the salary and allowances of the deputationists
of the Corporation are governed by the terms and conditions of their deputation
as decided by the Government from time to time. Therefore, the respondents
cannot be treated and equated at par with the similar categories of employees
of the State Government.
21. The learned Single Judge of the High Court as also the learned Judges of
the Division Bench have considered the controversy in detail in their judgments
holding the respondents entitled for the revision of pay scales at par with
their counter-parts working in the State of Haryana.
22. It is not in dispute that a deputationist holds the post in a particular
cadre office for the duration he remains on deputation and is a part of that
cadre. No material has been placed on record by the appellants to show that the
deputationists are appointed against only certain particular posts or that they
cannot be posted or transferred to the posts held by the respondents. In fact,
it is an admitted position that the posts are mutually inter-changeable. In
this situation, it is reasonable to infer that a deputationist performs the
same duties as those performed by other persons working in the cadre. It is
also an admitted position that the qualifications laid down for recruitment in
the Corporation are identical to those prescribed in the Departments of the
Government. It is further clear that the respondents have continued to work in
the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. As against this, their counter-parts in the Government and also
the persons, who are posted in the Corporation by way of deputation, would get
the scale of Rs.3000-4500 on completion of five years of service and are placed
in the scale of Rs.4100-5300 (to the extent of 20% of the posts) on completion
of 20 years of service. The respondents were obviously placed at a
disadvantageous position. The decision of the Government in rejecting the
proposal of the Board of Directors suffers from the vice of invidious
discrimination and cannot be sustained because the very same decision of the
Board with regard to all other employees has since been accepted and approved
by the State Government. On the scrutiny of the material on record, it is clear
that the appellants did not produce any evidence on record to establish that
the working conditions, responsibilities and nature of duties, etc. of the
respondents are different to their counter-parts working in the same categories
in the State Government, Boards and other Corporations, etc. and also the
persons who are working with the Corporation on deputation.
23. A careful examination shows that the issue was not really about grant of
pay scales to Corporation Engineers on par with PWD Engineers. When the pay
revision took place, the revised pay scales that were given to the Engineers of
the State Government were also given to the engineers of the Corporation with
effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining the parity. What was not extended to
the Corporation employees, which is the subject matter of the grievance, is the
further revision by way of 'removal of anomaly in pay scales' given to
AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the State Government with effect from 1.5.1989 vide circular
dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real question would be whether
what is given by way of anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of State
Government, should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of
engineers of the Corporation. When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a
class of Government servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay
revision but a correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment to the
pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the pay revision
extended to the government servants has already been extended to the employees
of the Corporation also, it follows that any correction of anomaly in the
revised pay scale given to the government servants should also be made in the
case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the pay scale which is
the subject matter of the correction. It should be borne in mind that the
question whether Corporation engineers were on par with PWD Engineers and
should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when the pay scale
revision granted to Government (PWD) engineers was extended to the corporation
Engineers also with effect from 1.1.1986. That question did not again arise
when the anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with reference to the
Government engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of Government engineers
was rectified, the rectification should apply to Corporation engineers also to
maintain the parity.
24. The plea of the appellants that the Corporation is running under losses
and it cannot meet the financial burden on account of revision of scales of pay
has been rejected by the High Court and, in our view, rightly so. Whatever may
be the factual position, there appears to be no basis for the action of the
appellants in denying the claim of revision of pay scales to the respondents.
If the Government feels that the Corporation is running into losses, measures
of economy, avoidance of frequent writing off of dues, reduction of posts or
repatriating deputationists may provide the possible solution to the problem.
Be that as it may, such a contention may not be available to the appellants in the
light of the principle enunciated by this Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of
India [1990 Supp. SCC 191] and Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union [(2000) 4 SCC 245]. However, so long as the
posts do exist and are manned, there appears to be no justification for
granting the respondents a scale of pay lower than that sanctioned for those
employees who are brought on deputation. In fact, the sequence of events,
discussed above, clearly shows that the employees of the Corporation have been
treated at par with those in Government at the time of revision of scales of
pay on every occasion. It is an admitted position that the scales of pay were
initially revised w.e.f. April 1, 1979 and thereafter on January 1, 1986. On
both these occasions, the pay scales of the employees of the Corporation were
treated and equated at par with those in Government. It is thus an established
fact that both were similarly situated. Thereafter, nothing appears to have
happened which may justify the differential treatment. Thus, the Corporation cannot put forth financial loss as a ground only with
regard to a limited category of employees. It cannot be said that the
Corporation is financially sound insofar granting of revised pay scales to
other employees, but finds financial constraints only when it comes to dealing
with the respondents, who are similarly placed in the same category. Having
regard to the well reasoned judgment of the Division Bench upholding the
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the
impugned judgment warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality, infirmity
or error of jurisdiction could be shown before us.
25. In the result, for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in these
appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. However, the parties are left
to bear their own costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3