Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Malook Singh vs State Of Punjab . on 26 February, 2021

Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah

     SLP(C) 14029-31/11
                                                            1

     ITEM NO.1                           Court 6 (Video Conferencing)                   SECTION IV-B

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F               I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.14029-14031/2011


     MALOOK SINGH                 & ORS.                                                Petitioner(s)

                                                          VERSUS

     STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.                                                             Respondent(s)

     (With appln.(s) for IA No.58130/2011 - I.A. NOS.4-6 FOR VACATION OF
     STATUS QUO)


     Date : 26-02-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                                   HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH


     For Petitioner(s)                   Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.
                                         Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR

     For Respondent(s)                   Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv.
                                         Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR

                                         Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR


                               UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                O R D E R

1 During the course of the hearing, Ms Anusha Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that she has received written instructions and hence, the arrangement envisaged under the interim order of this Court dated 27 April 2012 cannot form the basis of the final resolution of the dispute in the Special Leave Petitions. According to the learned counsel, the seniority list of 1994 has been quashed by the High Court.

Hence, the petitioners cannot be granted relief on the basis of a seniority list Chetan Kumar which has been set aside.

Date: 2021.02.26 17:16:38 IST Reason:

SLP(C) 14029-31/11 2

2 Responding to the above submission, Mr P S Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners took the benefit of the interim order dated 27 April 2012 but all of them have retired from service. Learned counsel submits that in this view of the matter, it would be appropriate if the position as it obtains on the basis of the interim order is allowed to continue for the future.

3 Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that while on the one hand, monetary benefits which have been received by the petitioners in the past should not be recovered, the remaining aspects of the matter would still survive for consideration. In order to enable the Court to have a complete picture of the position, we direct the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State to take instructions and apprise the Court on whether the respondents have also received promotions in the meantime. Learned counsel shall also clarify whether the petitioners would have been entitled to promotion in the normal course and if so, from what date, in the event that the impugned order of the High Court were to hold the field.

4 An affidavit shall be filed within three weeks from today.

5 List the Special Leave Petitions on 6 April 2021 along with SLP(C) No 25310/2011 and SLP(C) No 22674/2011.

               (CHETAN KUMAR)                                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
                A.R.-cum-P.S.                                    Court MasterQ