- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of U.P And Others v. Visheshwar .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, Visheshwar, filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming entitlement to confirmation on the post of Forest Guard and payment of salary applicable to that post. Before adjudicating the merits of this claim, the High Court issued an interim order on 1-11-1993 directing that he be confirmed as Forest Guard and be paid regular salary. The State (appellant) challenged this interim order before the Supreme Court, resulting in the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in granting, by way of interim relief, what amounted to the final relief sought in the writ petition before determining the writ petition on its merits.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the central issue in the writ petition—whether the respondent is legally entitled to the post of Forest Guard and corresponding salary—had not yet been adjudicated by the High Court. By directing confirmation and regular pay at the interim stage, the High Court effectively granted the ultimate relief sought, thereby pre-empting its own final decision on the merits. The Court held that such an interim order, which disposes of the substantive controversy without adjudication, is “wholly unwarranted.” Consequently, the interim order had to be set aside so that the High Court could decide the writ petition on its merits and, if appropriate, grant relief at that time.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s interim order dated 1-11-1993 is set aside; no order as to costs.
Implications: The decision reinstates the principle that interim relief should not pre-judge or dispose of the final relief sought. The High Court must now examine the respondent’s substantive claim and grant relief, if any, only after full consideration. The ruling affects only the parties to this case and sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming established procedural discipline.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against an interim order by which the writ petitioner Visheshwar (respondent herein) has been directed to be confirmed on the post of Forest Guard and there is also direction to pay him salary of a regular employee holding that post.
3. The main question for decision in the writ petition before the High Court is the status of the writ petitioner on the basis of his claim to the post of Forest Guard, which is yet to be adjudicated. By the interim order the High Court has actually granted the final relief itself without an adjudication on the point in controversy on which the grant of that relief depends. In these circumstances, granting of the final relief in the form of interim relief was wholly unwarranted. The impugned order dated 1-11-1993 has therefore to be set aside. The question of grant of relief claimed in the writ petition would be considered on its merits by the High Court and that relief to which the writ petitioner is found to be entitled may be granted at the time of decision of the writ petition. No such interim order of the kind which has been made is called for.
4. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
Alert