State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Sahaguram Arya
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2399-2401 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.3432-3435/2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.3432-3435/2000)
Petitioner: State of U.P. and Ors.
Respondent: Sahaguram Arya
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2399-2401 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.3432-3435/2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.3432-3435/2000)
Judges: V.N. KHARE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 04, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – First writ against order of transfer – Second against orders of suspension – Third against withdrawal of powers – Fourth against cancellation of assignment of work and functions as SE – By interim orders, High Court staying operation of all orders – Even fifth writ for regularisation of service – Interim orders to maintain status quo – Counter affidavits filed – Writs not being heard. Held that writ petitions be expeditiously decid-ed, preferably within 6 months. Appeals disposed of.
(Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The respondent herein is an Executive Engineer in U.P. Minor Irrigation. In February, 1999 he was posted as an Executive Engineer in the district of Jhansi, U.P. In addition to charge of his office, the respondent was also holding the charge of Superintending Engineer. By an order dated 8.1.99 the respondent was transferred from Jhansi to Headquarters at Lucknow. The respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 1910/1999, challenging the order of his transfer dated 8.1.1999. On 3.2.1999, the Allahabad High Court while entertaining the petition issued an ad interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. The appell-ants filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition. On 4.6.1999, the respondent was placed under suspension, pending departmental inquiry. The respondent, by another Writ Petition No. 24759/99, challenged the order of suspension. On 15.6.1999, the High Court admitted the writ petition and by an ad interim order stayed the operation of the suspension order dated 4.6.1999. In this case also, the appellants filed a counter affidavit. On 9.7.1999, the appellants passed an order whereby certain financial and adminis-trative powers were taken away from the respondent. The respond-ent again challenged the order dated 9.7.1999 by means of a Writ Petition No. 28512/99 and the High Court, by an interim order dated 15.7.1999, stayed the operation of the order dated 9.7.1999. In this case also, the appellants filed a counter affidavit. On 17.4.1999, the assignment of work and functions of Superintending Engineer conferred upon the respondent was can-celled and the same was assigned to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation. As a result, on 22.4.1999, the said assignment of work of the Superintending Engineer was taken away from the respondent. The respondent again challenged the order dated 17.4.1999 by means of a Writ Petition No. 17293/99 which he withdrew. Few days later, the respondent filed another Writ Petition No. 17830/99 praying for regularisation of his services as Superintendent Engineer. On 14.5.1999, the High Court by an interim order directed for maintaining status quo meaning thereby the order dated 17.4.1999 continued to be in abeyance. It is against the aforesaid four interim orders passed by the High Court, the appellants are in appeal before us.
4. In all the four writ petitions filed by the respondent, there are serious allegations of mala fides against the concerned Minister and it is alleged therein, that it is at the instance of the Minister concerned the impugned orders were passed. It is also alleged that the impugned orders were passed in bad faith. Although the counter affidavits on behalf of the appellants have already been filed, still the writ petitions are not being heard on merits. In such cases, if the allegations in the writ peti-tions are correct, the rights of the respondent must be vindicat-ed and the party at whose instance such orders have been issued in bad faith his continuance in the office is not in public interest. If the allegations in the writ petitions are found incorrect, the delinquent employee (respondent) deserves treat-ment which has been inflicted upon him. Keeping the writ peti-tions pending without deciding them on merits neither subserve the cause of justice to the parties concerned nor it is healthy in public interest.
5. While entertaining Special Leave Petition, we have already suspended the operation of the impugned orders. We, therefore, feel appropriate that in these cases a request be made to the High Court to decide the writ petitions expeditiously, pending before it. Since we stayed the operation of some of the impugned orders and they are continuing, we direct the parties to main-tain status quo, as on today, and request the High Court to hear and dispose of all the four writ petitions within a period of six weeks from today, if possible, and the same is not inconvenient.
6. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The respondent herein is an Executive Engineer in U.P. Minor Irrigation. In February, 1999 he was posted as an Executive Engineer in the district of Jhansi, U.P. In addition to charge of his office, the respondent was also holding the charge of Superintending Engineer. By an order dated 8.1.99 the respondent was transferred from Jhansi to Headquarters at Lucknow. The respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 1910/1999, challenging the order of his transfer dated 8.1.1999. On 3.2.1999, the Allahabad High Court while entertaining the petition issued an ad interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. The appell-ants filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition. On 4.6.1999, the respondent was placed under suspension, pending departmental inquiry. The respondent, by another Writ Petition No. 24759/99, challenged the order of suspension. On 15.6.1999, the High Court admitted the writ petition and by an ad interim order stayed the operation of the suspension order dated 4.6.1999. In this case also, the appellants filed a counter affidavit. On 9.7.1999, the appellants passed an order whereby certain financial and adminis-trative powers were taken away from the respondent. The respond-ent again challenged the order dated 9.7.1999 by means of a Writ Petition No. 28512/99 and the High Court, by an interim order dated 15.7.1999, stayed the operation of the order dated 9.7.1999. In this case also, the appellants filed a counter affidavit. On 17.4.1999, the assignment of work and functions of Superintending Engineer conferred upon the respondent was can-celled and the same was assigned to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation. As a result, on 22.4.1999, the said assignment of work of the Superintending Engineer was taken away from the respondent. The respondent again challenged the order dated 17.4.1999 by means of a Writ Petition No. 17293/99 which he withdrew. Few days later, the respondent filed another Writ Petition No. 17830/99 praying for regularisation of his services as Superintendent Engineer. On 14.5.1999, the High Court by an interim order directed for maintaining status quo meaning thereby the order dated 17.4.1999 continued to be in abeyance. It is against the aforesaid four interim orders passed by the High Court, the appellants are in appeal before us.
4. In all the four writ petitions filed by the respondent, there are serious allegations of mala fides against the concerned Minister and it is alleged therein, that it is at the instance of the Minister concerned the impugned orders were passed. It is also alleged that the impugned orders were passed in bad faith. Although the counter affidavits on behalf of the appellants have already been filed, still the writ petitions are not being heard on merits. In such cases, if the allegations in the writ peti-tions are correct, the rights of the respondent must be vindicat-ed and the party at whose instance such orders have been issued in bad faith his continuance in the office is not in public interest. If the allegations in the writ petitions are found incorrect, the delinquent employee (respondent) deserves treat-ment which has been inflicted upon him. Keeping the writ peti-tions pending without deciding them on merits neither subserve the cause of justice to the parties concerned nor it is healthy in public interest.
5. While entertaining Special Leave Petition, we have already suspended the operation of the impugned orders. We, therefore, feel appropriate that in these cases a request be made to the High Court to decide the writ petitions expeditiously, pending before it. Since we stayed the operation of some of the impugned orders and they are continuing, we direct the parties to main-tain status quo, as on today, and request the High Court to hear and dispose of all the four writ petitions within a period of six weeks from today, if possible, and the same is not inconvenient.
6. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
