Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nagendra Sah vs Union Of India And Others on 23 March, 2022
LPA-214-2022(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-214-2022(O&M)
Date of decision: 23.03.2022
Nagendra Sah
... Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Arun Gosain, Sr. Panel Counsel,
for respondent No.1-UOI.
Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Anil Mehta, Sr. Standing Counsel, with
Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. Standing Counsel; and
Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4.
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate, for
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
***
RAVI SHANKER JHA, C.J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by
an interim order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Single Bench of this Court
in Civil Writ Petition No. 702 of 2022, wherein the interim order granted on
earlier occasion permitting the appellant to continue in service has been
vacated.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
issue involved in the present case is regarding the age of superannuation
1 of 5
applicable to the appellant. It is submitted that in view of the order(s) passed
by the respondent-authorities, the age of superannuation has been increased
to 65 years whereas the authorities are superannuating the appellant at the
age of 62 years.
In the petition filed by the appellant, the Single Bench vide
order dated 25.01.2022 had granted an interim order permitting the
petitioner to continue in service till the next date of hearing. However, vide
the impugned order dated 04.03.2022, the said interim order has been
vacated by the Single Judge.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
impugned order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Single Bench vacating the
interim order is contrary to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court
rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 20447 of 2020 "Dr. Jogender Pal Singh
and others vs. Union of India and others" wherein the Single Judge
wrongly relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered
in Civil Writ Petition No. 15738 of 2018 "Aditya Singh Barget (minor)
through his father Vikram Singh vs. Union of India and others".
When confronted with the fact of maintainability of the present
appeal on the ground that it has been filed against an interim order, learned
counsel for the appellant has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme
Court rendered in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others vs.
Chunilal Nanda and others 2006(5) SCC 399; Shah Babulal Khimji vs.
Jayaben D.Kania and another, 1981 (4) SCC 8; Mithailal Dalsangar
Singh and others vs. Annabai Devram Kini and others 2003(10) SCC 691;
and Subal Paul vs. Malina Paul and another 2003(10) SCC 361.
2 of 5
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant on this issue, it
is observed that Supreme Court in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment
relied upon by the appellant rendered in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank
Ltd. and others vs. Chunilal Nanda and others (supra) has summarized the
law in the following terms:-
"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 of 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 purpose of filing appeals
provided under the Letters Patent."
3 of 5
Though learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
impugned order falls within clauses (i), (ii) & (iii) of paragraph-15 of the
judgment Midnapore Peoples' (supra), it is observed that the impugned
order passed by the Single Judge is purely interlocutory in nature. It is
further evident from a perusal of the impugned order that the Single Judge
has not decided any collateral issue or the controversy/question involved in
the petition finally or any issue which materially and directly affects the
final decision in the main petition even though it is not the subject matter of
the main petition.
We are constrained to say so as the issue as to whether the
appellant is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 65 years or not is
still pending adjudication before the Single Bench of this Court. Mere
withdrawal or vacation of the interim order does not in any manner decide
the issue or the right of the appellant to continue in service up to the age of
65 years finally. More so, in case the petition is ultimately allowed by the
Single Bench, the petitioner (appellant herein) would be entitled to all the
benefits flowing therefrom. On the other hand, in case the petition is
ultimately dismissed, any benefit derived by the appellant pursuant to the
interim order passed earlier would be difficult to recover.
In the circumstances, as the order passed by the Single Bench is
purely interim in nature and does not decide any issue which in our
considered opinion is left open to be raised and decided by the Single Judge
as and when the matter is finally heard, the appeal filed by the appellant is
not maintainable in view of the law laid down in Midnapore Peoples'
(supra). The appeal filed by the appellant is, accordingly, dismissed
4 of 5
permitting the appellant to take up all the issues before the Single Bench at
the time of final hearing of the case including the issue raised and considered
by the Single Bench while passing the interim order. It goes without saying
that the Single Judge while hearing the matter would decide all the issues
raised by the appellant.
( Ravi Shanker Jha )
Chief Justice
( Arun Palli )
Judge
23.03.2022
Rajan
Whether speaking / reasoned: YES
Whether Reportable: NO
5 of 5
