STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR versus RAJENDRA SINGH ARYA AND ANR

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 16-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
[2009] 15 ·(ADDL.) S.C.R 933 
' i 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR 
A 
. 
~-' 
.. 
v . 
RAJENDRA SINGH ARYA AND ANR 
. , (Civil Appeal No. 7597 of 2009) 
" 
NOVEMBER 16, 2009 
[TA~UN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
i ' 
,1•_, 
i-
Servi9e law: Seniority - Writ petition claiming seniority 
~ , 
,.. 
wit/} all consequential benefits from year of allotment by the 
..-
Public Service Commission --' By in]pugned order claim 
al/cwed by High Court relying upon the decision of another c 
High Court - On appeal by State, held: The decision on the 
basis of which impugned order was passed has already been 
overruled - In view of that, the ~mpugned order is set aside and 
matter is remitted to High Court to decide afresh. 
D 
In Re: .~uresh Chandra Sharma and An,r. v. State of 
' 
~ 
Uttaranchal andOrs. (2002) 1 UPLBEC 18; Uttaranchal 
j 
t 
Forest Rangers Association(Direct Recruits) and Ors. v State 
of.Uttar Pradesti'and'Ors. (2006) 10 SCC 346, referred to . 
. :Y 
E 
Case law refererice : . 
(2002) 1 UPLBEC 18 
referred to 
Para 2 
(2006) 1 o sec 346 
referred to 
Para 6 
#.. 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7597 
F 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.8.2006 of the High 
Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petitioner No. 258 (SB) 
of 2006. 
G 
" 
Su nil Kumar Singh, Anuvrat Sharma for the Appellants. 
:.( 
M.N. Krishnamani Avtar Singh, Raj Siogh Rana, for the 
933 
H 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal by Special Leave arises from the judgment 
and final order dated 19th of August, 2006 passed by the High 
" 
Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 258 (SB) of 
2006 whereby the High Court had allowed the Writ Petition of 
the Respondent No.1, relying upon the law laid down by the High 
c Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the case of In Re: Suresh 
Chandra Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors, [(2002) 
1 UPLBEC 18), in which it was held that an incumbent shall be 
allowed seniority with all consequential benefits from the year of. 
D 
E 
F 
· allotment by the State Public Service Commission. 
3. At this stage, be it mentioned that the High Court by its 
impugned order, allowing the Writ Petition had observed the 
following: 
"Following the judgment of the Lucknow Bench, this Court 
had also disposed of the Writ Petition no. 39(SB)/2005. 
Keeping in view of the said observations, we are of the 
opinion that the Respondents should be directed to treat 
the Petitioner having been promoted substantively as 
Forest Ranger from the year 1987-88 and to give 
consequential benefits to him. The Petitioner should be 
given seniority accordingly." 
4. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Uttarakhand h~s come 
up in this Court by way of a special leave petition w:-,i~h on grant 
of leave was heard in the presence of tht: learned counsel for 
G the parties. 
H 
5. We have hear9 the learned counsel for the parties and 
also examined the impugned order. On a plain reading of the 
impugned judgment of the High Court, it is crystal clear that the 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR. v. RAJENDRA935 
SINGH ARYA AND ANR. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] 
• 
_J. 
High Court, while allowing the Writ Petition of the Respondent 
A 
ll!" , 
No.1, had only relied on the decision.of the Lucknow Bench, In 
Re: Suresh Chandra (Supra) which had held that an incumbent 
shall be allowed seniority with all consequential benefits from the 
year of allotment by the State Public Service Commission. 
~ 
6. This judgment rendered in In Re: Suresh Chandra (supra) 
8 
was challenged by way of a special leave in Uttaranchal Forest 
>-
Rangers Association (Direct Recruits) & Ors. v. State of Uttar 
. 
Pradesh & Ors. [2006 (10) SCC 346] and the views expressed 
-
.. 
in the case of Suresh Chandra (supra) was upset by this Court c 
by the aforesaid decision. While allowing the appeal of the State 
of Uttarakhand, this Court had set aside the judgment delivered 
in Suresh Chandra (supra) on which relfance was placed by the 
High Court in the impugned judgment. 
7. That being the position and in view of the fact that the 
D 
.lo, 
decision on the basis of which the High Court had delivered its 
judgment has already been overruled, we have no other 
alternative but to set aside the order and to send the matter on 
remand to the High Court to decide the same in accordance with 
law. While decidi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.