Union of India &
Ors. Vs. P.N.Singh & Ors.  INSC 154 (23 January 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil)...CC 16005/2008 (From the judgment and order dated 02/04/2008 in WPCT
No.208/2007 of the HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA) UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Petitioner(s) VERSUS P.N.SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for
c/delay in filing SLP) Date: 23/01/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
S.H. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Sharan,
Mr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj,
Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.
Rajiv Talwar, Adv.
Mr. Parmanand, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel
the Court made the following ORDER Delay condoned.
The appeal is allowed
with no order as to costs.
(S. Thapar) (Madhu
Saxena) PS to Registrar Court Master The signed order is placed on the file.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2009 (Arising out
of SLP(C) No.1884/2009 @ CC 16005 of 2008) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELLANT
(S) VERSUS ORDER Delay condoned.
Vide judgment and
order dated September 28, 2007 passed by the High Court in WPCT No. 208 of 2007
the Writ Petition filed by Union of India stood dismissed.
Thereafter, Union of
India moved Review Petition bearing No. RVW 19 of 2007 which stood allowed in
the following terms:- "In our view, this is a fit case where the order
should be reviewed and accordingly, we allow the Application for recalling the
order passed by the Division Bench on 28.9.2007 in WPCT No. 208 of 2007 and fix
the matter for fresh hearing."
As can be seen from
the operative part of the Order passed by the Division Bench in the Review
Petition, the earlier Order dated 28th September, 2007 stood recalled and the
Writ Petition bearing No. WPCT 208 of 2008 stood restored.
-2- After restoration
the impugned judgment has been delivered by the Division Bench in WPCT 208 of
2007. The dispute revolves around the promotion claimed by the respondent to
the post of Executive Engineer. On going through the impugned order we find
that the said order is cryptic. It does not discuss the Service Rules which
were in force at the relevant date. It also does not discuss the Rules which
are in force as of date.
In the circumstances,
we set aside the impugned judgment and restore WPCT No. 208 of 2007 to the file
of the Calcutta High Court with a direction that the High Court shall dispose
of the said Writ Petition in accordance with law. We request the High Court to
expeditiously hear and dispose of the Writ Petition, preferably within nine
The civil appeal
stand allowed with no order as to costs.