SPA/144/2018 of State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS Vs Devi Dutt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No. 144 of 2018

State of Uttarakhand & Others …….... Appellants

Devi Dutt

……..Respondent

Ms. Prabha Naithani, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the respondent.

Coram: Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral)

In view of the grounds taken in the delay condonation application, duly supported with the accompanying affidavit, delay of 45 days’ is hereby condoned. Delay condonation application (CLMA No. 2912 of 2018) is allowed. 2. The present controversy raised in the appeal has conclusively been decided by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of “Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”, decided on 23.08.2017. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-

“6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab and ors.1 The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and anr. vs. Narata Singh and anr.2. While dealing with the said question this Court in paragraph 25 of the report held that the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule

3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules between 'temporary and officiating service' and 'work-charged service'. On the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work-charged service should be reckoned for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service' for grant of pension.

The judgment rendered by the Division Bench

of this Court in Satpal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, passed in Special Appeal No. 108 of 2014, vide judgment dated 23.10.2017, on the same legal issue was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

4. The law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is law binding on all the subordinate authorities throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Moreover the order dated 22.12.2017 is compromise/ consent order and the State Government is precluded from challenging the same. Accordingly the present appeal is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lac and Fifty thousand only).

5. The State Government is also advised not to file frivolous special appeals when the controversy raised in this appeal has already been decided conclusively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It amounts to negation of rule of the law and wastage of public money. The cost shall be recovered from the erring officers/officials, who have advised filing of the special appeal.

6. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018 decided on 23.03.2018 have held that State should not file frivolous appeal in the petty matters. Their Lordships have held as under:-

“19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which is legally unsustainable. It is

really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years.

20. Indeed, this reminds us of the apt observations made by the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla (as he then was) in the case of Firm Kaluram Sitaram vs. The Dominion of India (AIR 1954 Bombay 50). The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing while deciding the case between an individual citizen and the State made the following pertinent observations:

“Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person.”

21. These observations apply in full force against the State in this case because just case of the appellant was being opposed by the State on 11 technical grounds. As consequence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) are set aside and the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are restored with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the State to the appellant. Cost to be paid by the State along with the payment of gratuity amount.

22. The respondent-State is directed to release/pay the gratuity amount as determined by the Controlling Authority within three months to the appellant.”

In view of the above, the judgment impugned is

hereby affirmed. The present special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The cost shall go to the High Court Advocates’ welfare fund. 8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Lok Pal Singh, J.) balwant

(Rajiv Sharma, J.)