Allowed

Afsar Ali and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P.and 7 Ors.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2018WRIA/39056/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an earlier dismissal and restored the writ petition. It held that the State Public Services Tribunal violated natural justice by setting aside appointment orders of petitioners without hearing them, as they were necessary parties. The Tribunal's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order set aside; claim petition restored if respondent moves application within three months; costs of Rs. 25,000 awarded against respondent No. 8.

Afsar Ali and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.and 7 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39056 of 2013

¶3

Petitioner :- Afsar Ali And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 7 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ali Hasan,Ishtiyaq Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Chandra Dwivedi,V.P.Mathur

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Ref: Order on Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No.5 of 2018

¶6

This is an application seeking recall of order dated 22.05.2018 passed by this Court, whereby writ petition was dismissed in absence of learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

Reason for non-presence is explained satisfactorily. Application is allowed .

¶8

Order dated 22.05.2018 is hereby recalled.

¶9

Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Nitin Verma

¶10

Court No. - 34

¶11

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39056 of 2013

¶12

¶13

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶14

The order dated 22.05.2018 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall Application, writ petition is restored to its original number. As requested by learned counsel for parties, we proceed to decide this matter finally at this stage.

¶15

We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶16

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing a writ of certiorari judgment and order dated 14.06.2013 passed by State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.505 of 2002 whereby Tribunal has allowed claim petition filed by respondent No.8, Suresh Chandra and set aside orders dated 13.04.2001 and 26.08.2006 and directed official concerned to consider claim of respondent No.8 for regularization on the post of Collection Amin from initial date of appointment.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that by order dated 13.04.2001 (filed as Annexure 2 before Tribunal) petitioners were appointed as Collection Amin on regular basis by Additional District Magistrate, Bareilly. This order was challenged before Tribunal without impleading petitioners as respondents in the claim petition. Tribunal in the absence of necessary parties, without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioners, set aside their appointment orders. Therefore impugned

¶18

judgment and order dated 14.06.2013 passed by Tribunal is patently illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. Claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non impleadment of necessary parties.

¶19

We have gone through copy of claim petition filed before Tribunal which has been placed before us along with counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.8. At page 100 of counter affidavit, there is a copy of order dated 13.04.2001, which clearly shows that all four petitioners were appointed on regular basis as Collection Amin by Additional District Magistrate, Bareilly. When order dated 13.04.2001 appointing petitioners as Collection Amin on regular basis was challenged by respondent No.8 in Tribunal, all these petitioners were necessary parties and in their absence aforesaid order dated 13.04.2001 could not have been set aside by Tribunal. Tribunal has set aside appointment order dated 13.04.2001 of petitioners in utter violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent No.8 contended that present petitioners were appointed under certain orders of this Court, obtained by them concealing material facts and playing fraud, hence, when appointment order dated 13.04.2001 was challenged before Tribunal, petitioners were not entitled to any opportunity of hearing nor were necessary parties and therefore, non impleadment of petitioners would not render claim petition non maintainable and impugned judgment and order dated 13.04.2001 is perfectly justified.

¶21

Submission of counsel for respondent No.8 is wholly misconceived. It is a settled proposition of law, when an order is challenged in Court of law, it is incumbent upon the person challenging such order to implead all the persons likely to suffer adversely if the claim is accepted. No order against interest of an individual without complying with the principles of natural

¶22

justice can be passed. In the present case appointment order dated 13.04.2001 whereby petitioners were appointed on regular basis as Collection Amin was challenged before Tribunal. Hence, these petitioners were necessary parties. In their absence no order adverse to them should have been passed by Tribunal. In the absence of petitioners, since they are not afforded any opportunity of hearing, impugned judgment of Tribunal setting aside appointment order dated 13.04.2001 cannot be sustained.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned judgment and order dated 14.06.2013 passed by Tribunal in Claim Petition No.505 of 2002 is hereby set aside. However, we provide that respondent No.8 if seeks to implead these petitioners as parties before Tribunal and move an application within three months from today, Tribunal may treat the claim petiton restored and proceed in accordance with law.

¶24

Writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs which we quantify to Rs.25,000/- against respondent No.8.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Nitin Verma

Afsar Ali and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P.and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsar Ali and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P.and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swarnjeet Kushwaha Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Dr. Kamal Ullah Vs Union of India and 7 Others

Dr. Surya Narayan Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bharti Airtel Limited Vs State of U P and 2 Others

A/S Ras Polytex Pvt. Limited Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

m/s aditya birla fashion and retail Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.