The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs M Jagadeesh Chandra Prasad
2024 Latest Caselaw 561 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs M Jagadeesh Chandra Prasad on 12 January, 2024

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

        MAIN CASE:      W.A.Nos.759, 770 and 771 of 2023

                                    PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl.     DATE                                    ORDER                                    OFFICE
No.                                                                                       NOTE


18)   12.01.2024   GN,J & VN,J
                       Heard    learned    Government       Pleader   for   Services-I
                   appearing for the appellants, who placed reliance on the
                   judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
                   Midnapore Peoples' Co.op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda :
                   (2006) 5 SCC 399, and more particularly, he took us to
                   paras.17 and 18, which read as follows:

                         "17. The next question is whether the appeal was not
                         maintainable because, it was filed by the Chairman
                         and the Secretary-in-Charge of the Bank eo nomine,
                         and not by the "Bank" itself. The order dated
                         20.11.1998 against which the appeal was filed, was
                         passed by the learned single Judge in the course of
                         contempt    proceedings.   The   Chairman    and   the
                         Secretary-in-Charge were parties to such proceedings
                         having been impleaded eo nomine as respondents 1
                         and 4 respectively. The 'Bank' as such was not a
                         party to the contempt proceedings. The learned single
                         Judge proceeded on the basis that the Chairman and
                         the Secretary-in-Charge represented the 'Bank' by
                         referring to them as 'Respondent Bank' and directing
                         them to reinstate the complainant (first respondent
                         herein) and to pay all salary arrears to him. If the
                         Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge were considered
                         as representing the Bank for issuing such directions,
                         certainly they could file an appeal against such
                         directions. The directions were issued to them and
                         they were the persons aggrieved.


                         18. The Division Bench, therefore, committed a
 Sl.   DATE                                 ORDER                                 OFFICE
No.                                                                               NOTE


                   serious and obvious error in holding that the appeal
                   [MAT 4075 of 1998] was not maintainable under
                   clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Though the order of
                   the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.1998, by which
                   several directions to the Bank with reference to first
                   Respondent were issued, is not a final 'judgment', it
                   is an 'interlocutory judgment' which finally decides
                   several rights and obligations of the employee vis-a-
                   vis the employer and therefore, appealable under
                   clause 15 of the Letters Patent. "


                 In that view of the matter, the interim suspension,
             ordered earlier, shall be continued until furthers.

                List these Appeals on 22.01.2024.

                                                                       _______
                                                                        GN, J.

_______ VN, J.

cs Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE