LexHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA versus MADAN MOHAN PRASAD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 972 A HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA B v. MADAN MOHAN PRASAD & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7630 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 [J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Service Law - Promotion and grant of consequential benefits - Respondent-Munsif in State Judicial Services, c suspended from service - Thereafter, writ petitions and SLPs filed - Suspension order as well as departmental proceedings withdrawn - Notification issued posting the respondent as Additional Munsif (lowest post) - Challenged by respondent - He sought direction to the High Court on its administrative 0 side to give him promotions from the dates when his juniors named in the petition were promoted during the period 1970 to 1981, with all increments and other benefits - Thereafter, respondent retired from service - Various petitions as also representations filed - Finally in a writ petition, the Division E Bench directed the appellant-High Court on its administrative side to consider the case of promotion of the respondent as also consequential benefit in accordance with Jaw - On appeal, held: Promotion is not a matter of right much less a fundamental right, more particularly when promotion in the subordinate judiciary is to be dealt with by the High Court F which has complete control over the subordinate judiciary in view of Article 235 - On facts, respondent was claiming promotions to the post of Civil Judge, thereafter to the post of Additional District Judge and finally to the post of District Judge when his juniors were given such benefits in the years G 1971, 1974 and 1978 respectively- Record shows that till the respondent had superannuated from service, he was discharging duties as Additional Munsif and was never confirmed in the cadre of Munsif - Thus, his claim for H 972 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA v. MADAN 973 MOHAN PRASAD & ORS. promotion to higher post could not have been considered A unless and until he was confirmed on the posfof Munsif - Claim of promotion was stale one and could not have been entertained by the High Court-Juniors to the respondent who were given benefits of promotion were not impleaded as parties - In their absence, claim of the respondent could not B be examined - Earlier the respondent had filed petition claiming promotions from retrospective dates with all claims, benefits and increments in various cadres from various dates as and when they had accrued and were given to his imm~diate juniors was dismissed and also attained finality c and thus, would operate as res judicata - Also all rights and claims of respondent got crystallized - Neither at the time of disposal of SLP respondent claimed any other relief nor obtained permission to claim relief of promotion in future - Thus, the High Court erred in directing appellant to consider D the case of respondent for promotion - Order of the High Court set aside. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Or. XVI r. 10(1) proviso - Requirement of - Held: When a petition for special leave is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed and is E accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, the Court should not condone the delay without notice to the respondent - Once the Court forms an opinion that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay then issuance of notice to the respondent to show cause as to why delay should F not be condoned may become an empty formality - In order to see that the respondent does not incur unnecessary expenditure for coming to Delhi from far off places and engage an advocate for contesting the said application, delay is condoned ex-parte - However, if the respondent is not G issued a notice, then a right would be available to him at the stage of hearing to point out that the Court was not justified in condoning the delay and that the leave, if granted, should be revoked or notice issued should be dismissed. H 974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Respondent No.1-Munsif in State Judicial Service filed a writ petition challenging his dismissal from service and he was reinstated in service. However, two years later he was suspended from service and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Aggrieved, B respondent No. 1 filed writ petitions and the. same were dismissed. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed SLPs. During pendency thereof, the High Court issued a Notification suspending respondent No. 1 from
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.