Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And Others vs Purshottam Singh on 25 October, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 380 of 2006
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Others
Respondent :- Purshottam Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Srivastava
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
In Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 117170 of 2016.
Heard Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Pankaj Srivastava for the respondent.
This application for condoning the delay has been filed giving reasons in the affidavit filed in support thereof. Having considered the submissions raised, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay condonation application is allowed.
The appeal shall be treated to the within time and shall be given a regular number by the office.
Order Date :- 25.10.2017
Ishan
.
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 380 of 2006
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Others
Respondent :- Purshottam Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Srivastava
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th October, 2005, in relation to the claim of regularization of services in the Forest Department. This issue according to the learned counsel for the respondent is no longer res-intigra, inasmuch as, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of (Chanchal Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. Hari Shankar) Special Appeal No. 1205 of 2010 decided on 03.08.2010 has ruled in favour of the respondent.
It is further submitted that another Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Chhiddi & another) has taken a view contrary to the aforesaid judgment on 24th September 2015, without noticing the ratio of the aforesaid judgment.
It is urged by Sri Pankaj Srivastava that the earlier judgment in the case of Chanchal Kumar Tiwari (Supra) was subjected to an appeal before the Apex Court by the State of U.P. and its officials and the said appeals were disposed of vide judgment dated 2nd February, 2016 after granting leave by a reasoned and speaking order. He therefore, contends that if the judgment in the case of Chanchal Kumar Tiwari (Supra) has been affirmed by the Apex Court by a reasoned judgment then applying the principle of merger, the said Division Bench judgment stands merged with the judgment of the Apex Court dated 2nd February, 2016 which would be binding. Notice can be taken of the principle of merger as explained in paras 41 to 44 of the apex Court judgment in the case of Kunhayammed & Others vs State Of Kerala & Another reported in 2000 (6) SCC 359.
In the background of the aforesaid, he submits that the judgment in Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Chhiddi) (Supra) rendered on 24th September, 2015 would not be binding on this Court. It is also stated by Sri Pankaj Srivastava that some more attempts were made by moving applications and review petitions before the Apex Court that have also failed, as a result whereof the judgment of the Apex Court dated 2.2.2016 is final.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that if there is a conflict of judgments by two coordinate Division Benches of this Court then the matter ought to be referred to a larger Bench but he submits that he may be permitted to study the matter keeping in view, the judgment of the Apex Court dated 2nd February, 2016 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent.
The learned Standing Counsel may examine the said issue and then assist the Court.
List in the next cause list along with Special Appeal No. 916 of 2008.
Order Date :- 25.10.2017
Ishan
