Post Graduate Institute Of ... vs Ravinder Sharma & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1591 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
215
                                                  CWP No.9554 of 2018 (O&M)
                                                  Decided on : 14.03.2022

Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh

                                                                ... Petitioner
                                         Versus
Ravinder Sharma and others

                                         ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:     Mr. Abhishek Premy, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 43.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

The present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.04.2017

(Annexure P-4) wherein the Tribunal continued the interim order, whereby

it had stayed the recovery in pursuance to the impugned order, but disposed

off the original application with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh

original application on the same cause of action without prejudice to their

rights. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 06.11.2017

(Annexure P-9), whereby the review application filed by the petitioner-

Institute was dismissed.

The same was done on account of the fact that the issue was

subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.21803

of 2014 'Union of India Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair etc., wherein there was a

stay by the Apex Court. Another reasoning which weighed with the

Tribunal was that the applicants would face huge financial expenses of

unnecessary repeated adjournments and, therefore, liberty was granted to

1 of 4

the applicants to file a fresh OA on the same cause of action after the

decision of the abovesaid SLP.

The petitioner-Institute had also filed a review

application which was dismissed on the ground that there was no

error in the order passed, which in the considered opinion of this

Court is also not justified.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the said

procedure which was followed by the Tribunal was not warranted or

justified in any manner. Interim orders cannot be allowed to

continue in the absence of main petition pending and, therefore, the

exercise carried out by the Tribunal was extra-ordinary to the extent

that the applicants-employees before the Tribunal were protected

while disposing of the original application. It is the settled principle

that interim orders always run till the currency of the litigation in

which they are passed and not beyond that and the same is in

consonance with the doctrine of merger. Therefore, the order dated

24.04.2017 (Annexure P-4) is not justified.

For the same reasoning the review application was

dismissed on 06.11.2017 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that there

was no apparent error on the face of the record.

A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that it

is the case of the petitioner-Institute that the employees were not

covered by the judgment passed in 'State of Punjab & others Vs.

Rafiq Masih (White Washer)' (2014) 8 SCC 883, which had also

been relied upon on account of the fact that they were Group-B

2 of 4

employees. The same was also brushed aside in the order under

review, which is subject matter of challenge herein, without taking

into consideration the settled position as such that interim orders

have only limited life span till the main case is pending. If the said

principle is to be applied, then an order passed by the Civil Court

under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC can be continued, whereas the suit

itself is dismissed as withdrawn, which is not logical. In such

circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in any manner by

passing the impugned order.

The Apex Court in 'Asian Resurfacing of Road

Agency Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation', (2018) 16 SCC 299 has held that the power to grant

stay has to be exercised with restraint and the order granting stay

must show application of mind, since it is coupled with the

accountability. It was, accordingly, held that stay should not be

granted for indefinite duration and unless extension is granted by a

speaking order. The said principle shall apply not only for

corruption cases but for all other civil and criminal cases. The said

principle of law laid down would thus be applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

Mr. Singla submits that he would be satisfied if the

impugned orders are modified to the extent that the case is remanded

to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits, since it is not disputed

that the judgment in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) has

now been finally pronounced as reported 2020 (2) SCT 366.

3 of 4

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the

orders dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-4) and 06.11.2017 (Annexure

P-9) are set aside. The original application stands restored on the

file of the Tribunal, which shall decide the same on merits. It is

made clear that we have not opined on the merits of the case. Parties

shall put in appearance before the Tribunal on 04.04.2022.

                                          (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
                                                  JUDGE


                                                (VIKAS SURI)
March 14, 2022                                     JUDGE
Naveen




             Whether speaking/reasoned:                  Yes/No

             Whether Reportable:                         Yes/No




                            4 of 4