WPSB/565/2021
2023 Latest Caselaw 1857 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                 AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL



              WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 565 OF 2021


                             18TH JULY, 2023


Between:


Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical
Corporation Limited             ......                       Petitioner


and


Central Administrative
Tribunal and others                   ......               Respondents


Counsel for the petitioner       :   Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents      :   Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel
                                     for respondent No. 2
                                 :   Mr.    Rajesh   Sharma,    learned
                                     Standing Counsel for the Union of
                                     India / respondent Nos. 3 & 4



The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)




             Counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent

No. 2, which is taken on record.


2)           We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
                                 2




3)         The        petitioner,              Indian       Medicines

Pharmaceutical      Corporation        Ltd.,    has     preferred       the

present    writ    petition     to     assail    the     order    dated

30.11.2021,       passed   by        the   Central      Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, being O.A. No.

2727 of 2021, whereby the Tribunal has directed - in the

first part of its order, that the petitioner herein should

decide    the   representation        of   respondent       No.     2    -

applicant before the Tribunal, by a reasoned and

speaking order.


4)         The Tribunal went ahead to direct that, till

such time the order is passed by the petitioner herein,

the services of respondent No. 2 - applicant before the

Tribunal, shall continue, though without remuneration,

subject to further orders by the Supreme Court in SLP

No. 4110 of 2021, preferred against the orders passed

by the High Court of Odisha.


5)         So far as the first direction requiring the

petitioner to decide the representation of respondent No.

2 by a reasoned and speaking order is concerned,

possibly, there cannot be any grievance raised by the

petitioner, since that direction does not prejudice the

petitioner in any way.        The latter part of the operative

order, directing the continuation of the service of
                            3




respondent No. 2, till the representation is decided,

however, in our view, was not called for, and was not

justified in the facts and circumstances of the case,

without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to

defend the proceedings.        The impugned order was

passed on the very first day of the hearing of the

Original Application by the Tribunal, without calling upon

the petitioner herein - respondent No. 3 before the

Tribunal, and file their counter-affidavit, and without

hearing them.     Merely because it was directed that

respondent No. 2 - applicant before the Tribunal, need

not been paid any remuneration, was no solace to the

petitioner, since the petitioner would have to continue to

avail of the services of respondent No. 2, and allow him

to enter the office and intermeddle and deal with official

work, even though, according to them, he stands

superannuated.


6)        We, therefore, rescind the impugned order,

insofar as it directs continuation of the service of

respondent No. 2, till the decision of his representation.


7)        We dispose of this petition with direction to

the petitioner to decide the representation by a reasoned

and speaking order, within the next four weeks. In case,

the representation of respondent No. 2 is rejected, it will
                           4




be open to him to avail of such remedy, as is available

under the law.


8)         The writ petition stands disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.



                                   ________________
                                   VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.



                                _________________
                                RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Dt: 18th JULY, 2023 Negi