LexSABYASCHI SENGUPTA AND ORS. versus NANI GOPAL DATTA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SABYASCHI SENGUPTA AND ORS.
v.
NANI GOPAL DATIA AND ORS.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ... APPLICANT
- 'j
B
APRIL 11, 1990
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA
REDDY, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 141, 142 and 144-0rder or
~
c
direction of apex Court-Dinding on all Courts-To be implemented
and executed in all its rigour.
'r
Some employees belonging to West Bengal Civil Service (Execu-
tive) filed a writ petition before the High Court, praying for a direction
to the State Government to frame appropriate seniority rules. The High
~
D
Court passed an interim order directing the State Government to frame
seniority rules and determine the inter-se seniority on that basis within
one month of the order. On an application moved by the petitioners the
same Judge passed an interim order that the seniority rules framed
pursuant to the Court's order would not be given effect to without leave
of the Court and without notice to the writ petitioners. On another
E
application moved by the writ petitioners, the same Judge restrained
the State Government from taking any further action on the basis of
_ __J
the draft rules of seniority.
Later, the Jndgment was delivered allowing the writ petition,
holding that the draft rules were ultra vires. Aggrieved, the State
F
Government preferred an appeal before a Division Bench. The Division
Bench stayed the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the
'(
Single Judge. The Division Bench also directed that the State Govern-
ment may proceed with the final assessment of the seniority rules. -{
Aggrieved against the said order the writ petitioners filed a Special
Leave Petition which was dismissed with a request to the High Court to
G
dispose of the pending writ petition expeditiously within two months.
The High Court extended the stay till the disposal of the appeal and
directed status-quo. Against this order, the original respondents in the
writ petition filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court. This Court
passed an Interim order to the effect that the order passed by this Court
earlier would hold the field, notwithstanding any contrary order passed 1
H
by the High Court. Later, granting special leave, this Court observed
476
SABYASCHI v. M.G. DATTA
477
that in view of the interim order no further order need be passed.
The present application has been filed by the State for clarifica-
tion of the two orders of this Court in the context of the order dated
15.9.1989 of the High Court.
Disposing of the application, this Court.
HELD: 1.1 It is the settled principle of law that any order or
direction pronounced by this apex Court in exercise of its jurisdiction in
any matter pending before it, that order or direction is binding on all
courts within the territory of India. and should be implemented and
executed in all its rigour. [ 484D I
1.2 From the report sent by the Division Bench of the High Court
dated 15th September, 1989 it seems the latter Division Bench extended
the 8 weeks stay on the grounds-firstly that the Order of this Court
dated 29.8.1989 has not prevented the Division Bench from passing
such order and secondly that the 8 weeks stay stood vacated w .e.f. 4th
September, 1989. But in fact, the Order of the Court dated 29.8.1989
has restored the order of the first Division Bench of the High Court
dated 10.7.1989 on the expiry of 8 weeks and that the 8 weeks stay had
expired only by 9.9.1989 and not on 4.9.1989. [484E-F]
1.3 It is open to the State Government to act in accordance with
the order dated 10.7.1989 of the High Court. The Order of this Court
dated 7.9.1989 in SLP No. 10670/89 has clarified the position to the
effect that the Order of this Court dated 29.8.1989 shall hold the field
notwithstanding the contrary order passed by the Division Bench of
>
the High Court. The "contrary order" mentioned in the order dated
A
B
c
D
E
7 .9.1989 refers to the order dated 4.9.199. The resultant position is that
F
this Court by the order dated 7.9.1989 has rendered the order of the
}
second Divisiou Bench of the High Court dated 4.9.1989 inoperative and
ineffective. Subsequently, SLP No. 10670/89 was disposed of after grant
of leave. Thus the matter now stands concluded that from 10.9.1989
onwards the order of the first Division Bench dated 10.7.1989 has
become operative and executable and the. interim direction given by that
G
order is brought back to life and resuscitated. [4Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.