Dismissed

Union of India and 2 Others v. Harinandan and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024WRIA/10319/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Tribunal order mandating the sanction of retiral dues. Relying on a coordinate bench in Heera Lal and Santosh Kumar Sharma, which held that the earlier precedent relied by the Tribunal required no different view, the Court dismissed the petition to maintain judicial consistency and finality.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it lacked substance in light of the judgment in Heera Lal and is not required to be revisited.

Union of India and 2 Others vs Harinandan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120684-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10319 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Union Of India And 2 Others Respondent :- Harinandan And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in O.A. No. 89 of 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent has been allowed and the Tribunal following the order in Union of India & others v. Shyam Lal Shukla; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60272 of 2009 has set aside the order dated 31.1.2022 and directed sanction of the retiral dues in favour of the respondent along with interest.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that judgement in the case of Shyam Lal Shukla (Supra) , which has been relied upon by the Tribunal, is not a good law and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶8

This Court in Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication & 3 others v. Santosh Kumar Sharma & 2 others; Writ - A No. 5199 of 2024 decided on 22.4.2024 wherein similar issue was raised, after hearing counsel for the parties, came to the following conclusions :

¶9

"4. Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that similar plea raised on behalf of Union of India has been negated by this Court in Union of India Vs. Heera Lal & Another: Writ A No. 10505 of 2023, decided on 01.12.2023 and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶10

5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶11

6. The Tribunal, relying on judgement in the case of Shyam Lal Shukla (Supra) granted relief as noticed herein before. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶12

the case of Heera Lal (Supra) after considering all the issues, as raised in the present petition, including the submissions that judgement in the case of Shyam Lal Shukla (Supra) was not a good law, came to the following conclusion:

¶13

"35. Thus, we are not inclined to offer any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the principle of consistency that must be maintained in the interest of predictability and faith in justice dispensation system. Adopting the view taken by this Court in Chandi Lal (supra) we refuse to exercise discretion for reason of length of engagement of the private respondent. That view is also seen to have been consistently applied in the State of Uttar Pradesh over a long period of 16 years. We consider that period of time and the finality attained by all decisions of this Court following Chandi Lal (supra), to be decisive. We cannot look to differentiate or test the empirical correctness of the decision in Chandi Lal (supra) or Shyam Lal Shukla (supra) or Krishan Pal Singh (supra). To do that would be to bring uncertainty and in judicial decision making and to unsettle the adjudication already made, which has also attained finality in the case of exactly similarly situated persons.

¶14

36. In exercise of powers of judicial review, this Court does not have any positive powers like those vested in the Supreme Court - to pass any order to do complete justice. However, it is a well settled principle - jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is both extraordinary and discretionary besides being equitable. It may not be readily invoked by a litigant, and it may not be mechanically exercised by the Court, at every illegality shown to exist. To that extent, it may be a part reflection of the spirit of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, commending to this Court to go slow where its intervention may cause more injustice than curing it.

¶15

37. We are also mindful of the fact that no such exercise is required to be made in the present facts as the respondent and others are individual citizens, pitted against the almighty State that too none other than the Union of India. A citizen who has given all his productive life to Union of India, may not be out witted on legal niceties and procedural technicalities at the behest of the Union of India. The respondent has no option available to survive in life or to do any thing other than what he did for more than 30 years i.e. to serve the Union of India. His productive years are lost. Accordingly, interference is declined. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs."

¶16

7. A co-ordinate bench has come to a categorical conclusion that the judgement in the case of Shyam Lal Shukla (Supra) and other similar case did not require any different view and consequently dismissed the writ petition filed by Union of India.

¶17

8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are firmly of the opinion that the judgement, as passed by the Tribunal, does not require any interference in the light of judgement in the case of Heera Lal (Supra), to which we concur.

¶18

9. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed."

¶19