Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

M.V. Katoch, Dg Icmr vs Shyamala Balasubramanian . on 31 July, 2014

¼     ITEM NO.2                           COURT NO.9                  SECTION XII

                                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) NO(S). 18536-18538/2013
     (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01/08/2012
     IN CP NO. 1221/2011, 1309/2011 AND 1310/2011 PASSED BY THE HIGH
     COURT OF MADRAS)

     M.V. KATOCH, DG ICMR                                               Petitioner(s)

                                                 VERSUS

     SHYAMALA BALASUBRAMANIAN & ORS.                                    Respondent(s)
     (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)

     Date : 31/07/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                              HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
                              HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE

     For Petitioner(s)                   Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG
                                         Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Adv.
                                         Ms. Gunwant Dara, Adv.
                                         Mr. Rishi Kant Singh, Adv.
                                         Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
                                         Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)                   Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.
                                         Mr. B. Raghunath, Adv.
                                         Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.


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

Though, in our considered view, the High Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction ought not to have adjudicated and determined the pensionary entitlements of the respondents, particularly, when in the original writ petitions out of which the contempt cases had arisen, the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vinod Lakhina Date: 2014.08.02 10:35:42 IST Reason: Page No.1 of 2 entitlement to pension was not an issue before the High Court and in the said proceedings it was only directed to consider for regularization of the incumbents from the date of the initial appointments, in the totality of the facts of the cases, we find that the High Court was correct in the conclusions arrived. As the matter relates to pension and some of the incumbents had already retired and the others also would be due for retirement shortly, we do not consider it proper to relegate the respondents to another round of litigation. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present Special Leave petitions. Consequently, we dismiss the same.

    [VINOD LAKHINA]                       [SNEH LATA SHARMA]
      COURT MASTER                           COURT MASTER




                                                   Page No.2 of 2