Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Bhopal ... vs H.N. Raghuvanshi on 6 July, 2015
1
W.A. Nos.221 of 2015, 222/2015, 223/2015, 224/2015 &
346/2015:
6.7.2015
Shri N.K. Salunke, Advocate for the appellant in
W.A. Nos.W.A. Nos.221 of 2015, 222/2015, 223/2015 &
224/2015.
Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant in
W.A. No.346/2015.
Shri A.A. Barnad, G.A. for the respondents/State.
W.A. Nos.221 of 2015, 222/2015, 223/2015 & 224/2015:
Heard counsel for the parties.
These appeals take exception to the order passed by learned single Judge declining to vacate the ad-interim relief granted in the respective writ petitions while admitting the same, as was granted in other cases, which are not the subject matter of these appeals. 2- We are informed that there are in all 17 writ petitions involving identical question, but, the present appeals take exception to the interim order passed only in respect of 4 writ petitions. In our considered opinion, as it is not in dispute that the appellant is named as respondent in more than 8 cases, the interim relief granted in companion cases having not been assailed, we cannot countenance 2 inconsistent approach in that regard. In that, some litigants before the same High Court are enjoying interim relief, whereas the other litigants have been denied that relief because of the appeals filed by the respondent in selective matters, praying for vacating the interim relief. It will be useful to refer to the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar Vs. State of Bihar1.
Further, we find that the learned single Judge has exercised discretion in rejecting the applications to vacate the ad-interim relief for reasons stated in the impugned order. That being a possible view, we decline to interfere in these intra Court appeal proceedings.
We also decline to interfere because we find that all the 17 writ petitions were included in the weekly list for hearing before Court No.4 and in fact were called out on two different occasions on last Wednesday and Thursday. On both the occasions, the respondents in writ petitions (appellant in writ appeals), did not remain present, necessitating keeping back of those matters. Had the counsel for the appellant remained present, we have no manner of doubt that hearing of all the writ petitions could have proceeded together analogously when it was called 1 AIR 1987 SC 1345 3 out on last Wednesday and Thursday respectively. The fact that the matters have not been included in the current weekly list, for this week, does not mean that same will not be included in the following week, after the older matters in the category group of more than 10 cases are first disposed of or adjourned, as the case may be. The cases are taken for hearing in the concerned category, as per its turn i.e. oldest matter first. Parties will, therefore, have to abide by that discipline and cannot insist for priority in hearing of their writ petitions, which inevitably would be ignoring the rightful claim of older cases of the same type. 3- Accordingly, we reject these appeals and direct the Registry to process all the writ petitions under appropriate category, as per its turn, whichever is earlier as per the listing scheme.
W.A. No.346/2015 :
4- Heard counsel for the parties for final disposal, by consent. Counsel for the respondents waive notice. As short question is involved appeal is heard finally forthwith. 5- This appeal takes exception to the order dated 29.6.2015 passed in W.P. No.8809/2015 refusing to stay the operation of the impugned order necessitating the appellant to superannuate at the age of 58 years, instead of 4 60 years, which according to the appellant is the lawful right of the employees similarly placed.
6- According to the appellant, learned single Judge committed manifest error in not granting interim relief, which has already been granted in several other companion cases, and even after taking notice thereof in the impugned order dated 29.6.2015. Learned single Judge, in our opinion, instead, was obliged to follow the orders passed in other cases of similarly placed persons, which are already admitted, following the principle stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar (supra). 7- Moreover, we agree with the argument of the appellant that learned single Judge has completely misread and misapplied the order passed in W.A. No.221/2015 by the Division Bench. In that appeal, the Division Bench had merely stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned single Judge declining to vacate the interim order granted in favour of the writ petitioner in the concerned case. That order, by no stretch of imagination, can be read to mean that the interim protection given to the writ petitioner in the companion cases, stood vacated. Moreover, the Writ Appeal No.221/2015, filed by the respondent, now has already been dismissed by us today thereby affirming the interim order passed in writ petitions 5 involving similar issues, pending for final hearing before the learned single Judge.
8- As a result, we allow this writ appeal filed by the writ petitioner in W.P. No.8809/2015 and grant interim relief on the same terms, as granted in companion cases referred to in the impugned order. The W.P.No.8809/2015 shall proceed for hearing along with companion cases. 9- We make it clear that final hearing of all the writ petitions be proceeded analogously.
10- Interim arrangement shall continue till disposal of the writ petition or further orders to be passed by the concerned Court.
11- The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (K.K. Trivedi)
Chief Justice Judge
Khan*