Dharam Singh Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1368 P&H

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1368 P&H
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2022

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharam Singh Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 March, 2022

LPA-188-2022 ( O&M )                                                  -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                                  LPA-188-2022 ( O&M )
                                            Date of decision : 09.03.2022

Dharam Singh Yadav
                                                          .......Appellant
                                 Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                         ....Respondents

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Present:    Mr. Bikramjit S. Patwalia, Advocate,
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

                         ****

RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral )

This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved

by the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench in

CWP-3428-2020, vide which the interim order dated 07.02.2020 was

clarified/modified as well as the order dated 22.02.2022 vide which

CM-2126-CWP-2022 filed by the appellant for re-calling the order dated

02.02.2022 has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

had filed the writ petition (CWP-3428-2020) against the promotions

sought to be made by the respondents - authorities, wherein an interim

order was passed in his favour staying the promotions. In the said writ

petition, CM-1029-CWP-2022 was moved by respondent No.4 seeking

preponement of the main case, which was allowed by the learned Single

Bench vide order dated 02.02.2022 and the respondents - authorities

were permitted to take a final decision qua the impending promotions, if

they wish to do so, with the stipulation that the order of promotion, if

1 of 5

LPA-188-2022 ( O&M ) -2-

any, would not be implemented until CWP-7473-2021, wherein the

seniority list of the appellant and respondent No.4 was subject-matter of

dispute and challenge, was finally decided and adjudicated.

The appellant filed LPA-128-2022 against the aforesaid

order dated 02.02.2022. However, when confronted with the decision of

the Supreme Court rendered in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.

and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others, reported in (2006) 5

Supreme Court Cases 399, learned counsel for the appellant chose and

was permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to move an appropriate

application before the learned Single Bench. The appellant, thereafter,

moved CM-2126-CWP-2022 before the learned Single Bench seeking re-

call of the order dated 02.02.2022, which has been dismissed vide order

dated 22.02.2022 on the ground that the order dated 02.02.2022 was

passed in the open Court after hearing the rival contentions of learned

counsel for the parties.

Being aggrieved by the said two orders, the appellant has

filed this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant, while arguing on the

question of maintainability of the appeal, has taken this Court through

paragraph 15 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Midnapore

Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others

(supra). He submits that in view of category (ii) of paragraph 15, the

appeal filed by the appellant is maintainable, as the impugned order dated

02.02.2022 finally decides an issue, which is materially and directly

affecting the final decision of the main case. He further submits that in

such circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single

2 of 5

LPA-188-2022 ( O&M ) -3-

Judge be set aside and the interim order granting stay in favour of the

appellant be restored.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, it is

observed that the impugned interim orders passed by the learned Single

Bench are purely interim in nature and do not finally decide any issue

which materially and directly affects the final decision of the main case.

Admittedly and undisputedly, the issue involved in the main case is the

issue of promotion vis-à-vis the appellant and respondent No.4 as well as

their inter-se seniority, which is also pending adjudication in

CWP-7473-2021.

From a perusal of the impugned order dated 02.02.2022, it is

further evident that the learned Single Bench has not decided finally or

otherwise any issue in respect of the right of the parties to promotion or

the issue of seniority. On the contrary, learned Single Bench by taking

into account the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.4 that

he is going to retire in the year 2023 has simply granted liberty to the

respondent - authorities to take a final decision in respect of the

impending promotions, if they wish to do so, and has also directed that

the promotion order, if any, issued by them would not be implemented

till the impugned seniority list, which is subject matter of challenge in

CWP-7473-2021, is finally adjudicated by the Court. Apparently, the

order is purely interim in nature. It does not finally or otherwise decides

any issue which materially and directly affects the final decision of the

main case.

Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the decision of the Supreme Court

in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda

and others (supra) read thus :

3 of 5

LPA-188-2022 ( O&M ) -4-

"15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories :

(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case.

(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case.

(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case.

(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.

(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

16. The term "judgment" occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to

(iii) above, are, therefore, "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent."

From a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is evident that

Letters Patent Appeal against an interim order which does not finally

4 of 5

LPA-188-2022 ( O&M ) -5-

decides any issue which materially and directly affects the final decision

is not maintainable. As already held by this Court, the impugned orders

passed by the learned Single Bench are purely interim in nature and do

not finally decide any issue raised by the appellant in the writ petition

pending before the learned Single Bench.

The appeal filed by the appellant being not maintainable is,

accordingly, dismissed.

( RAVI SHANKER JHA ) CHIEF JUSTICE