High Court Court held that a writ petition cannot entertain interim relief for salary arrears where no prima facie case exists, balance of convenience does not favor relief, and no irreparable loss would occur as final remedy ensures payment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~50
SMT ALKA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Basab Sengupta, Adv. with Mr. R.S. Kaushik, Adv.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shivangi Kumar and Mr. Ankit Kumar Vats, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
%
O R D E R (ORAL) 04.11.2024
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails, the following order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 1363/2024 on 12 September 2024:
“1. The present O.A. is listed today for consideration on applicants' prayer for grant of interim relief.
“Reliefs
i) call for the original records regarding appointment/regularization of the applicants.
1 “the learned Tribunal”, hereinafter
Signature Not Ver ified WP (C) 15349/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 4.11.2024 19:58:35
Page 1 of 6
ii) quash and set-aside the impugned cancellation order dated 19.04.2023 as non-est in the eyes of law (having been rendered without any enquiry mandated under DMC Act, 1957 & Regulations) and consequently
iii) reinstate the applicants to the job w.e.f. 19.04.2023 with all consequential benefits as admissible to other employees of MCD
iv) Pass any other order as deemed fit and appropriate.
Interim relief:
Regular appointment of the applicants have been made w.e.f. 01.04.2004. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that pending adjudication of the matter this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to order the respondents to grant admissible arrears of salary to the applicants from 01.04.2004 to 19.04.2023 (the purported date of cancellation of their appointments) except the salary already paid, since as per settled preposition of law termination of services cannot be given retrospective effect.”
i) Termination of services of the applicants with retrospective effect is bad and the same is without due process of law.
(ii) Appointments of the applicants are not in dispute.
(iii) The applicants are entitled for grant of admissible arrears of salary from the period of 01.04.2004 to 19.04.2023.
(iv) In written submissions filed by the respondents in O.A. No. 1865/2022, the respondents have stated that they have not stopped the applicants from joining and performing the duties. By referring to the said written
Signature Not Ver ified WP (C) 15349/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 4.11.2024 19:58:35
Page 2 of 6
submissions in O.A. No. 1865/2022 of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to a note dated 23.06.2023(page 222).
(i) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to follow the procedure of marking attendance as led down in MCD manual and be allowed to mark their attendance on the Attendance Register by their initials;
(ii) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to pay the salary from the month of November, 2021 and continued to pay on the basis of their regular service as per Appointment letter dated 20.07.2021;
(iii) That the applicants may kindly be given all consequential benefits and consequence of appointment order dated 20.07.2021.
Signature Not Ver ified
WP (C) 15349/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 4.11.2024 19:58:35
Page 3 of 6
2. In our considered opinion, when providing for a remedy by way of a writ petition to the High Court against orders passed by the learned Tribunal in L Chandra Kumar v UOI2 , the Supreme Court could not have envisaged that, against purely interlocutory orders, which are discretionary in nature and do not result in any irreparable loss to the applicant seeking interim relief, writ petition should be
2 1995 (1) SCC 400
Signature Not Ver ified WP (C) 15349/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 4.11.2024 19:58:35
Page 4 of 6
entertained by the High Court.
3. We are not seeking to state, as a proposition of law, that no writ petition would lie against any interim order passed by the learned Tribunal. However, three conditions which require cumulatively to be satisfied for interim relief to be granted are the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, if interim relief were not granted.
4. A reading of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal reveals that the interim relief sought by the petitioners is in the nature of arrears of salary. The petitioners have, in the prayer for interim relief, termed the arrears to be “admissible”. The learned Tribunal has, after a careful perusal of the facts, come to a prima facie conclusion that the respondents were not admitting the fact that the petitioners had worked for the period 1 April 2004 to 19 April 2023, for which arrears were being sought.
5. In any case, we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the said observations. Suffice it to state that, as the interim relief sought was by way of payment of salary as well as arrears, it cannot be said that, if interim relief were not granted, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss. In case the petitioners succeed in the OA, they no doubt be entitled to recover the arrears, perhaps with interest.
6. We also note that the learned Tribunal has listed the matter for
Signature Not Ver ified WP (C) 15349/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 4.11.2024 19:58:35
Page 5 of 6
final hearing on 10 December 2024. Obviously, the learned Tribunal is conscious of the urgency of the matter.
7. While declining to interfere in the present writ petition, we, however, merely request the learned Tribunal to, if possible and subject to its board and keeping in mind the priority to which the petitioners’ OA is entitled, take up the matter for final hearing on 10 December 2024.
8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
NOVEMBER 4, 2024 dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Ver ified
WP (C) 15349/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 4.11.2024 19:58:35
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to issue interim relief for arrears of salary pending disposal of an O.A. against a Tribunal order.
Whether denial of interim relief constitutes irreparable loss to the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L Chandra Kumar v UOIReferred¶50
L Chandra Kumar v UOI 1995 (1) SCC 400 · Who else cites this
Alka and Ors.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
C. Hari Shankar
Sudhir Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
