State of
Uttarkhand & ANR. Vs. Rajender Singh Arya & ANR. [2009] INSC 1738 (16
November 2009)
Judgment
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7597
OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP)No.18194 of 2007] State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
...
Appellants
VERSUS Rajendra Singh Arya & Anr. ...Respondents
TARUN
CHATTERJEE, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal by Special Leave arises from the judgment and final
order dated 19th of August, 2006 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at
Nainital in Writ Petition No. 258 (SB) of 2006 whereby the High Court had
allowed the Writ Petition of the Respondent No.1, relying upon the law laid
down by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the case of In Re: Suresh
Chandra Sharma & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors, [(2002) 1 UPLBEC 2
18], in which it was held that an incumbent shall be allowed seniority with all
consequential benefits from the year of allotment by the State Public Service
Commission.
3.
At this stage, be it mentioned that the High Court by its impugned
order, allowing the Writ Petition had observed the following:
"Following
the judgment of the Lucknow Bench, this Court had also disposed of the Writ
Petition no. 39(SB)/2005. Keeping in view of the said observations, we are of
the opinion that the Respondents should be directed to treat the Petitioner
having been promoted substantively as Forest Ranger from the year 1987-88 and
to give consequential benefits to him. The Petitioner should be given seniority
accordingly."
4.
Feeling aggrieved, the State of Uttarakhand has come up in this
Court by way of a special leave petition which on grant of leave was heard in
the presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
5.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
examined the impugned order. On a plain reading of the impugned judgment of the
High Court, it is crystal clear that the High Court, while allowing the Writ
Petition 3 of the Respondent No.1, had only relied on the decision of the
Lucknow Bench, In Re: Suresh Chandra (Supra) which had held that an incumbent
shall be allowed seniority with all consequential benefits from the year of
allotment by the State Public Service Commission.
6.
This judgment rendered in Re: Suresh Chandra (supra) was
challenged by way of a special leave in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Association
(Direct Recruits) & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2006 (10)
SCC 346] and the views expressed in the case of Suresh Chandra (supra) was
upset by this Court by the aforesaid decision. While allowing the appeal of the
State of Uttarakhand, this Court had set aside the judgment delivered in Suresh
Chandra (supra) on which reliance was placed by the High Court in the impugned
judgment.
7.
That being the position and in view of the fact that the decision
on the basis of which the High Court had delivered its judgment has already
been overruled, we have no other alternative but to set aside the order and to
send the matter on remand to the High Court to decide 4 the same in accordance
with law. While deciding the writ petition after remand, it is expected that
the High Court will take into consideration the law laid down by this Court in
the case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Association (supra).
8.
The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The High Court is
requested to decide the matter keeping in mind the views expressed by this
Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Association (supra) within three months
from the date of production of a copy of this order to it.
9.
For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed to the
extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
...........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]
...........................J.
New Delhi;
Back
