UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus RAM KUMAR THAKUR

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 15-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 494 
A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
}--
; 
v. 
RAM KUMAR THAKUR 
(Civil Appeal No.6112 of 2008) 
B 
OCTOBER 15, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
>--· 
) 
I 
Service Law: 
... 
c 
Re-instatement - Single Judge of High Court ordered 
re-instatement of employee - Employer filed writ appeal cha/-
/enging the order bµt at the same time implemented the order 
by re-instating the employee - Division Bench of High Court 
dismissed the writ appealas infructuous - Propriety of - Held: 
D Not proper - Writ appeal to be heard by Division Bench on 
merits. 
The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed writ t--
appeal filed by the Appellants as infructuous on the 
E ground that_ Respondent-employee had been. reinstated 
in service pursuant to the judgment of the Single Judge 
which was impugned in the writ appeal. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that merely 
because the order of. the Single Judge was implemented 
. 
. 
. 
. 
F to avoid possible contempt proceedings that did not take \-
a.way the right of the appellants to question the correct-
ness of .the said order and file appeal thereagainst. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD:1.1. Even in cases where interim relief is not 
granted in favour of the applicant and the order is imple-
mented that does not furnish a ground for not entertain-
~ 
ing the appeal to be heard on merits. [Para 4] [496-D] 
H' 
494 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAM KUMAR 
495 
THAKUR 
------! 
1.2. The impugned order of the High court cannot be A 
maintained and is set aside. The writ appeal shall be heard 
by the High Court on merits. [Para 7] [497-8] 
Nagar Mahapalika v. State of UP (2006) 5 SCC 127; 
Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Kamataka (2005) 10 SCC 383 
B 
and Unio!] of India v. Narender Singh (2005) 6 SCC 106 -
relied on. 
---', 
' 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
c2006) 5 sec 121 
relied on 
Para 4 
c 
(2005) 1 o sec 383 
relied on 
Para 4 
(2005) 6 sec 106 
relied on 
Para 6 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6112 
D 
of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2006 of 
the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in CDLSW 
No. 150 of 2006 in Rest (CDLSW) No. D-114/2004 C/W Rest 
E 
(LPA) No. 13 of2006 
A. Sharna, ASG., Binu Tamta and Sushma Suri for the 
Appellants. 
Om Prakash Mishra, Prathibha Shukla and Ghan Shyam 
F 
-·-Y 
Vasisht for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
G 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
.. 
Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the 
~ 
appeal filed by the present appellants on the ground that the 
respondent had been reinstated in service pursuant to the judg-
ment of the learned single Judge which was impugned in the 
H 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
writ appeal filed before the Division Bench. The High Court held 
\ 
that the appeal had therefore become infructuous. 
r 
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the im-
pugned order of the High Court has no legal basis. Merely be-
B cause the impugned order ·before the High Court was imple-
mented to avoid possible contempt proceedings that did not 
take away the right of the appellants to prefer an appeal and 
question correctness of the impugned order. 
t--
c 
3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand 
supported the judgment. · 
. 
4. It has been noted by this Court that if even in cases 
where interim relief is not granted in favour of the applicant and 
the order is implemented that does not furnish a ground for not 
D entertaining the appeal to be heard on merits. (See : Nagar 
Mahapalika v. State of U.P [2006(5) SCC 127]. Similar view 
was also take in Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Kamataka 
!---
r2oos(1 O) sec 383]. 
E 
5. In Union of India v. GR. Prabhava/kar & Ors. [1973(4) 
sec 183] it was observed at para 23 as follows: 
"Mr Singhvi, learned counsel, then referred us to the fact 
that after the judgment of the High Court the State 
Government has passed an order on March 19, 1971., the 
F 
effect of which is to equate the Sales Tax Officers of the 
erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax 
~·-
Officers, Grade Ill of Bombay. This order, in our opinion, 
has been passed by the State Government only to comply 
with the directions given by the High Court. It was made 
G 
during a period when the appeal against the judgment 
was pending in this Court. The fact that the State 
Governmen

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