Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Kuldeep Kumar And Otehrs on 13 March, 2023
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 71 of 2023 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Respondent :- Kuldeep Kumar And Otehrs Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Singh,Shreesh Kumar Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us on this special appeal.
Proceedings of this special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules have been instituted questioning the validity and legality of the judgment and order dated 19.7.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions leading writ petition being Writ-A No.2000222 of 2015 whereby the writ petitions have been allowed, the orders rejecting the claim of the respondents-petitioners has been quashed and the clarificatory order dated 10.4.2015 has also been quashed. The learned Single Judge has directed the appellants-State authorities to refix the pay of the respondents-petitioners and issue revised pension payment order by granting them the benefit of grade pay of Rs.8700/-.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-State authorities is two folds. Firstly, he has argued that the learned Single Judge has decided the bunch of the writ petitions only on the basis of the judgment and order dated 28.1.2014 rendered in the case of Ashok Kanojia v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No.236 (SB) of 2013, decided on 28.1.2014 and the judgment in case of Birendra Kumar Maurya and another v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No.1440 (SB) of 2013, which was also decided along with the case of Ashok Kanojia by means of the judgment and order dated 28.1.2014, without considering the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Birendra Kumar Maurya and another in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.17297 of 2014, whereby it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that dismissal of the special leave petition shall not stand in the way of the State authorities raising all or any other contentions available to them in law in the pending proceedings.
Secondly, it has been argued by the learned State counsel that the learned Single Judge has not taken into account the averments made in the counter affidavit wherein the claim of the respondents-petitioners was denied on the basis of various Government Orders issued from time to time in respect of entitlement of the government employees for grant of time bound pay scales/ promotional pay scales.
When we peruse the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge before us what we find is that in para 14 the learned Single Judge has recorded that "the State has fairly submitted before this Court that the case of persons, who were similarly situated to the petitioners, would be governed by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kanojia v. State of U.P. and others".
When we drew the attention of the learned State counsel to the aforesaid finding recorded and observation made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under challenge before us, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that no such case was ever set up by the State before the learned Single Judge and it appears that the said observation has crept in on account of some misconception.
Be that as it may, the observations made or findings recorded in respect of factual aspects of the matter by the Court in its order/ ordersheet is treated to be sacrosanct in law. Though it is not that any party denying such statement having been made before the court concerned can not controvert the same, however, such opportunity of controverting will be available before the court which records any such statement. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another, reported in (1982) 2 SCC 643.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the appellants-State authorities will be better advised to seek review of the judgment and order, which is under challenge before us in this special appeal.
Thus, this special appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023 KR Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 71 of 2023 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Respondent :- Kuldeep Kumar And Otehrs Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Singh,Shreesh Kumar Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Re : Civil Misc. Application No.1 of 2023 Heard learned counsel representing the appellants-State authorities and Shri Shreesh Kumar and Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the special appeal, we are satisfied that the delay has satisfactorily been explained.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023 KR