- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of U.P And Another v. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Writ Petition No. 338 (S/B) of 1997 was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. Two learned Single Judges who constituted that Bench delivered conflicting opinions: one dismissed the petition, while the other allowed it and issued a mandamus directing the State to pay salaries to members of the petitioners’ association and to absorb them in State services or, alternatively, to retrench them in accordance with a Board resolution dated 19-12-1999.
Pursuant to Rule 3 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, the matter was referred to a third learned Judge. On 05-01-2001, the third Judge concurred with the opinion favouring the writ petition’s allowance, added directions to expedite absorption of remaining employees within three months, and expressly ordered that the writ petition be placed before the Division Bench for “appropriate orders.”
The writ petition, however, was never relisted as directed. A review petition against the third Judge’s order was disposed of on 13-07-2001. Thereafter, on 19-03-2005, the appellants filed an application requesting that the writ petition be listed before an appropriate Bench. The High Court dismissed this application, reasoning that no further order was necessary because the third Judge had already decided the matter. The present appeal challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to list Writ Petition No. 338 (S/B) of 1997 before a Division Bench for final orders, despite the explicit direction of the third learned Judge under Rule 3 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.
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 Court emphasized that the case was not a matter of “mere technical compliance” with the High Court Rules. Although Rule 3 mandates referral to a third Judge when there is a split decision, the rule also envisions that the matter returns to the Division Bench for final orders once the third Judge renders an opinion. Here, the third Judge not only concurred with one of the earlier opinions but also issued additional substantive directions concerning absorption of employees and explicitly instructed that the writ petition be relisted before a Division Bench. The High Court’s refusal to relist therefore defeated the procedural framework and the substantive directions contained in the third Judge’s order. Consequently, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s application to be erroneous.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: Appeal Allowed; Impugned Judgment Set Aside.
Writ Petition No. 338 (S/B) of 1997 is directed to be listed before an appropriate Division Bench of the High Court, which must dispose of the matter in accordance with law and the earlier opinions, preferably within three months. The decision primarily affects the procedural posture of the case and ensures compliance with Rule 3 of Chapter VIII; it sets no new substantive precedent.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. In Writ Petition No. 338 (S/B) of 1997, which was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court, there was difference of opinion between two learned Single Judges. One learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no force in the petition and directed its dismissal and the other learned Single Judge expressed the opinion that the writ petition deserved to be allowed. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition, reads as under:
“In the result, the writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to pay salary to the employees of the petitioners' association within four months from today and to take necessary steps for their absorption in various organisations of the State Government/public sectors expeditiously. However, it will be open for the opposite parties to take necessary steps for the retrenchment of the employees of the petitioners' association keeping in view the resolution dated 19-12-1999 of the Board of Directors of the Corporation.”
3. The matter was placed before a learned third Judge in accordance with Rule 3 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. The third learned Judge, in terms of the order dated 5-1-2001, agreed with the view aforequoted directing the writ petition to be allowed. The learned Judge, however, issued further directions, relevant paragraph whereof reads as under:
“It has been pointed out that certain employees opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and they have been paid their wages and dues. Certain employees were retrenched, who were paid their salary and retrenchment compensation. Consideration of such employees, still remains with the Court, who have not opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and they were retrenched for purposes of absorption.
In view of the fact that the State Government has assured this Court that they will be absorbed, there remains nothing to be decided except that the State Government should expedite their absorption in the State services, undertakings and Corporations on suitable post within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
List the petition before the Division Bench for appropriate orders.”
4. In accordance with Rule 3 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules as also the direction contained in the order dated 5-1-2001, aforequoted, the writ petition ought to have been listed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders. It was, however, not so listed. A petition seeking review of the order dated 5-1-2001 was disposed of by the third learned Judge in terms of order dated 13-7-2001. We do not see any reason for non-listing of the writ petition before the Division Bench despite specific orders dated 5-1-2001. An application dated 19-3-2005 was filed by the appellants praying that the writ petition be listed for hearing/orders before an appropriate Bench. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned judgment inter alia observing that:
“Since the matter was heard and decided by Hon'ble the third Judge in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 Chapter VIII of the Rules of this Court, no order is required to be passed on this application.”
5. It is not a case of mere technical compliance with Rule 3 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. It is a case where the third learned Judge, while agreeing with one of the learned Judges, as aforenoted, issued certain further directions and also specifically directed the writ petition to be listed for appropriate orders before the Division Bench. In this view, the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that since the matter was heard by the third learned Judge, no orders were required to be passed on this application.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and direct that Writ Petition No. 338 (S/B) of 1997 shall be listed before an appropriate Bench for orders in accordance with law, considering the orders passed by two learned Single Judges on 17-12-1999 disagreeing with each other and also the opinion of the learned third Judge in the matter, dated 5-1-2001. The Division Bench will decide the matter expeditiously, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months.
7. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Alert