STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. versus RAM SUKHI DEVI

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 05-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. 
v. 
RAM SUKHI DEVI 
OCTOBER 5, 2004 
B 
[ARiJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
C 
Article 226-Interim relief in writ petition-Scope of-Writ petition by 
wife of deceased a part-time employee seeking appointment on compassionate 
ground-High Court while issuing notice directing the authority concerned to 
consider her claim ignoring the G. 0. that Scheme not applicable to part time 
employees-Division Bench directing to appoint her within stipulated period-
Held, final relief sought for should not be granted at interim stage-Position 
D worsened when direction· issued with stipulation that applicable Government 
order be ignored-Orders of High Court set aside-UP. Recruitment of 
Dependent of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974-UP. 
Government Order dated 26.10.1998-Uttar Pradesh Sinchai Vibhag Mein 
Nalkoop Chalakon Ke Padon Par Anshkalik Nalkoop Chalakon Ke 
E Viniyamatikaran Niyamawali, 1996-Service Law-Appointment on 
compassionate ground-Claim by wife of deceased part-time employee. 
-Respondent's husband was a part-time Tubewell Operator. On his 
death the respondent moved an application for her appointment under 
the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying-in-
F Harness Rules, 1974. Her request was declined on the ground that in view 
of the Government Order dated 2~.10.1998 benefits under the 1974 Rules 
could not be given to the dependents of part-time employees. However, in 
the writ petition filed by her, Single Judge of the High Court while issuing 
notice directed the competent authority to consider her claim unfl'i'" the 
G 1974 Rules within the stipulated period ignoring the G.O. dated 26.t~ilP98. 
The Division Bench of the High Court, disposing of the special appeal, 
directed that the respondent should be given appointment on a class IV 
post within the stipulated period. 
In the appeal filed by the State Government it was contended tbat 
H the direction as given by the Single Judge and affirmed by the Division 
74 
" 
ST ATE v. R.S. DEVI 
75 
Bench of the High Court ran counter to the specific provision operative A 
in the Government Order and as such was unsustainable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Approach of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the 
High Court is judicially unsustainable and indefensible. The final relief B 
sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. 
There was no reason indicated by the Single Judge as to why the 
Government Order dated 26.10.1998 was to be ignored. Whether the writ 
petitioner was entitled to any relief has to be adjudkated at the time of 
final disposal of the writ petition. It is reiterated that the final relief sought C 
for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened 
when the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the 
applicable Government Order has to be ignored. The order passed by the 
Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set 
aside without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court 
has interfered primarily on the ground that the final relief has been D 
granted at an interim stage without justifia~le reasons. [70-D, E; 78-BI 
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd, 
(1985) 1 SCC 260; State of Rajasthan v. Mis Swaika Properties, [1985] 3 
SCC 217; State of UP. and Ors v. Visheshwar, (19951 Suppl. 3 SCC 590; 
Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd Musa and Ors., E 
[1995] Supp. 2 SCC 593; Shiv Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Directors, 
UP.S.R.T.C. and Anr., [1995] Suppl. 2 SCC 726 and Commissioner/Secretary 
to Govt. Health and Medical Education Department Civil Sectt., Jammu v. 
Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 214, relied on. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6510 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16. I 0.2003 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A.No. 225 of 2002. 
Javed M. Rao, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ms. Rashmi Singh and Kamlendra 
Mishra for the Appellants. 
Vinayh Arora and Sanjay Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
The State of U.P. calls in question legality of the judgment passed by 
a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Special Appeal 
filed by the present appellants. The Division Bench
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.