Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sheopujan Singh @ S.P.Singh vs Union Of India . on 11 March, 2015
Bench: Vikramajit Sen, Abhay Manohar Sapre
1
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9316-9317/2010
SHEOPUJAN SINGH @ S.P.SINGH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 11/03/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Appellant(s)
Dr. S.P. Singh
Petitioner in person
Mr. Ramekbal Roy, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.
Ms. Rashmi Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. S. Rajappa,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Appeals are dismissed in terms of the Signed Order with no order as to costs.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Usha Rani Bhardwaj Date: 2015.03.12 17:00:36 IST Reason:
(NEELAM GULATI) (SAROJ SAINI)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Order is placed on the file) 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 9316-9317 OF 2010 SHEOPUJAN SINGH @ S.P.SINGH Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R We have heard the matter at great length. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellant was working in the Umairabad High School from 25.09.1961 to 15.07.1973. Thereafter he joined the services of Respondent No. 2 i.e. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 16.07.1973 as a Post Graduate Teacher. He was subsequently selected as Principal in one of the Institutions run by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and ultimately superannuated from service on 31.01.1997. It is not in dispute that the Appellant is receiving retiral benefits from the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. However, the grievance of Appellant is that the services rendered by him from 25.09.1961 to 15.07.2013 in Umairabad High School should be counted not only for seniority purposes but also for computing his retiral benefits. So far as this argument is concerned, the Patna Bench of the 2 Central Administrative Tribunal by a detailed Order, passed on 18.07.2008 in O.A. No. 228 of 2005, has found against the Appellant on the grounds that the Umairabad High School was not receiving Grants from the Government but was only receiving deficit funding. In other words, the Umairabad High School was responsible for raising all its funds, but in the interest of education if there was a shortfall therein the State would make its contributions. We find no error in that finding as has also been the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench in the Impugned Order.
Furthermore, it has been disclosed that the Appellant had approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition which came to be dismissed on 13.04.2009. The Memorandum of Proceeding on that day records that the Petitioner had sought to withdraw the Petition stating that he proposed to file an Application for Review. On 13.04.2009, leave had not been obtained to approach this Court once again by way of Special Leave Petition in the event that the Appellant remained unsuccessful in the Review Petition. In “Vinod Kapoor vs. State of Goa” (2012) 12 SCC 378, this Court has held that a fresh Special Leave Petition would not be maintainable unless leave to approach the Court once 3 again had been specifically taken at the time of disposal of the previous Special Leave Petition. The jurisdiction in the present Petition would be restricted to whether dismissal of the Review Petition was right or wrong i.e. whether the Impugned Order which is now sought to be challenged once again was subject to an error apparent on the fact of the record. This is not a situation which prevails before us, therefore the Appeals are dismissed. However, we desist from making any order as to costs.
The Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
…..............J (VIKRAMAJIT SEN) …..............J (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) NEW DELHI MARCH 11, 2015