Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 3 Ors vs Mahesh Narayan Mishra And 89 Ors on 28 September, 2018
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018
In
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 707 of 2018
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Respondent :- Mahesh Narayan Mishra And 89 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned Additional Advocate General Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh for the State and Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for all the respondents.
We have considered the submissions raised on the issue of delay condonation and we find that cause shown is sufficient and the delay deserves to be condoned.
The application is allowed. The appeal shall be treated to be within time and shall be allotted a regular number.
Order Date :- 28.9.2018
Masarrat
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 707 of 2018
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Respondent :- Mahesh Narayan Mishra And 89 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned Additional Advocate General and Sri Saxena for all the respondents.
This appeal arises out of judgment of a learned single judge that has placed reliance on an earlier decision rendered by a learned single judge and affirmed in a Special Appeal and has proceeded to grant the benefit of post retiral dues to all the respondent-petitioners along with interest.
The contention raised is that against the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned single judge, a special leave to appeal was preferred before the Apex Court being Special Leave Petition No. 11199 of 2018. It is urged that even though the Special Leave Petition was dismissed refusing to exercise discretion Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India yet the question of law raised in the Special Leave Petition was left open and it was further clarified that the judgement of the High Court may not be treated as a precedent.
Learned counsel submits that since the reliance placed by the learned single judge is on the same judgment, the question of law still arises and the learned Additional Advocate General has placed heavy reliance on a three judges decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation 2005 Vol. 7 SCC page 764 paragraphs 13 onwards to contend that the respondents are not holders of a civil post and are not members of civil service. It is urged that they are only workmen and keeping in view the ratio of the decision in the said case the law has to be read accordingly and consequently, the exposition of law as recited in the judgment of the earlier coordinate bench in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Gorakhnath Pandey decided on 21st December, 2017 does not depict the correct position of law. Prima facie the contention appears to be correct and requires scrutiny.
However, the issue as to whether the respondent-petitioners are entitled to such benefits or not has also to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 keeping in view the fact that the appellant State has proceeded to extend such benefits to other similarly situate workmen pursuant to the directions of this court.
It is informed that Contempt Application No. 3765 of 2018 (Shivjag Sharma Vs. Alok Sinha) has been filed and notices have been issued. We request the learned Contempt Judge to defer the contempt proceedings till the disposal of this appeal.
Admit.
Order Date :- 28.9.2018
Masarrat
