Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs S.P Singh on 9 August, 2024
1 WA-1421-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1421 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
S.P SINGH
Appearance:
Shri S.S. Chouhan - Government Advocate for appellants/State.
Shri Sudarshan Chakrawarty - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Sanjeev Sachdeva, Acting Chief Justice
Appellants impugn order dated 08.04.2024 whereby, by way of
interim order, learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to extend the
benefit of 1st and 2nd Kramonatti to the respondent.
2. The grievance of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has by
way of an interim order virtually granted the entire final relief sought for in
the writ petition without determination of the issues arising in the writ
petition.
3. Issue notice.
4. Notice is accepted by the counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. With the consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2 WA-1421-2024
6. Subject writ petition has been filed by the respondent claiming the
following relief :-
"7.1 That, it is therefore, prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
the impugned order dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure P/8) passed by respondent No.4
and further may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing respondents the grant the benefit of KRAMONNATI under the time bound
promotion scheme 19.04.1999 in the light of the law laid down in the case of K.L.
Asre(supra) to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."
7. Respondent had earlier filed a petition before this Court being WP
No.15254/2019 claiming benefit of the Kramonatti. Said writ petition was
disposed of on 13.08.2019 directing the appellant to treat the same as a
representation and to decide the representation. The representation was
rejected by order dated 04.10.2019 leading to filing of the subject writ
petition. In the writ petition as noticed hereinabove, respondent had sought
for quashing of order dated 04.10.2019 whereby the representation was
rejected and for grant of benefit of Kramonatti under the time bound
promotion scheme dated 19.04.1999.
8. By way of impugned order dated 08.04.2024, learned Single Judge has
directed as under :-
"From the affidavit of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Mechanical Division, Bhopal, it is evident that the petitioner was
appointed as Handpump Mechanic on 15.4.1988 and had attained the age of
superannuation on 31.7.2012 from the same post, therefore, he is entitled to the
benefit of 1st and 2nd Kramonnati as he had completed 24 years of service on the
post of Handpump Mechanic. Let the aforesaid benefit be extended and brought to
the notice of this Court within fifteen days from today by the Executive Engineer,
Public Health Engineering Department, Mechanical Division, Bhopal. The
Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Mechanical Division,
Bhopal will also calculate petitioner's arrears of pay on account of extension of
benefit of Kramonnati within fifteen days and file an undertaking as to within how
much period, the arrears will be paid in favour of the petitioner"
3 WA-1421-2024
9. After the order dated 08.04.2024 was passed, learned Single Judge
passed a further order dated 30.05.2024 directing the appellants to clear the
amount and submit a report, failing which the same shall tantamount to
contempt of Court. This order is also impugned by the appellants in the
subject writ appeal.
10. It is settled position of law that final relief cannot be granted by way of
an interim order unless the non-grant of interim relief would tantamount to
entire relief becoming infructuous.
11. As noticed hereinabove, the relief sought for by the respondent was for
grant of benefit of the time bound promotion scheme which is being disputed
by the appellant. Without adjudicating the final claim of the respondent, by
way of an interim order, final relief has been granted which in
impermissible. Reference may be had to the judgment of Supreme Court in
the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & others vs. Ram Sukhi Devi, 2005(9)SCC
733. Relevant para 8 reads as under:-
"............Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of
granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief
sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie
case having been made out, without being concerned about the balance
of convenience, the public interest and a host of other
considerations............"
12. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 08.04.2024 and
13.05.2024 are set aside.
13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the
contentions of the counsel for respondent that relief sought for by the
respondent is covered by earlier judgments of the Court, we request the
4 WA-1421-2024
learned Single Judge to expedite the proceedings and endeavour to conclude
the same as expeditiously as possible.
14. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on
the merits of the contentions of the either party. All rights and contentions of
the parties are reserved.
15. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vibha
