THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.6 of 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellants/State is aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2020
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27267 of 2018.
2. Mr. P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents states
that the present appeal is not maintainable, as the order impugned by
the appellants dated 06.01.2020 is only a consent order.
3. On a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned
counsel for the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) had not
disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents
(writ petitioners) to the effect that the issue raised in the writ petition
had come up for consideration in W.P.No.17163 of 2019, which was
allowed vide order dated 09.12.2019 with directions issued to the
appellants herein to pay 100% gross salary to the petitioners therein.
The stand taken by the respondents/writ petitioners before the learned
Single Judge was that they were similarly situated as the petitioners in
the captioned writ petition and were therefore entitled to the same
benefit. In response, learned Government Pleader had stated that he
did not dispute the aforesaid position. As a result, the learned Single
Judge had disposed of all the connected writ petitions in terms of the
order dated 09.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.17163 of 2019 with a
W.A.No.6 of 2021 Page 1 of 3 direction issued to the appellants herein to pay 100% gross salary to
the respondents with all consequential benefits in terms of their
appointment orders, while keeping the issue of regularisation of their
services, open.
4. Now, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants
seeking to question the consent order. In our opinion, such an appeal
is not maintainable when the appellants had themselves given their
consent to passing of the impugned order.
5. Mr. N.Ramesh, learned Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants/State first submits that the impugned order was passed
without inviting a counter affidavit. On pointing out that a copy of the
counter affidavit is a part of the appeal paper book and placed at page
No.39, learned counsel states that the appellants had already preferred
an appeal against the order dated 09.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.17163
of 2019.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents refutes the said submission
and points out that even the appeal was preferred by the appellants
against the aforesaid order after the impugned order came to be passed
in W.P.No.27267 of 2018.
7. That being the position, it does not lie in the mouth of the
appellants to state that they had already preferred an appeal against
the order dated 09.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.17163 of 2019 or that
the said fact was not taken into consideration by the learned Single
Judge. When the appeal itself had not been filed before the date of the
impugned order, there was no question of the learned Single Judge
W.A.No.6 of 2021 Page 2 of 3 having been apprised of pendency of an appeal. The appellants
cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the consent recorded in the
impugned order and seek to challenge the same on pleas sought to be
taken on the merit of the matter.
8. At this stage, learned Government Pleader for the appellants
seeks leave to withdraw the present appeal while reserving the right of
the appellants to approach the learned Single Judge for seeking review
of the impugned order dated 06.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.27267 of
2018.
9. While cautioning learned counsel for the appellants to be more
careful in future and refraining from imposing costs for filing such a
misconceived appeal, leave, as prayed for, is granted. The present
appeal is dismissed as withdrawn along with the pending applications,
if any.
_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 03.02.2021 lur
W.A.No.6 of 2021 Page 3 of 3
