Allowed

Union of India v. Bhagwan Deen

Supreme Court5 Apr 20222022 INSC 3922022 INSC 392

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed a civil appeal challenging the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Delhi High Court regarding the LARSGESS Scheme. The Court held the Tribunal misplaced in relying on the Scheme, which has been consistently refused recognition by higher courts. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' views and dismissing the original application.

What did the court decide?

Set-aside the view of the Tribunal and High Court; dismiss Original Application No.4320 of 2014; condoned delay subject to deposit.

Union of India versus Bhagwan Deen — Supreme Court (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2720 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6220 of 2022 Arising out of Diary No.2153 of 2019)

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶5

Appellants

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

BHAGWAN DEEN & ANR. Respondents

¶8

ORDER

¶9

Delay in filing the instant matter is condoned, subject to the appellants depositing a sum of Rs.25000/- towards costs for the respondents. The amount be handed over to the respondents within three weeks from today; and the amount shall be recovered from the concerned officials who are responsible for causing delay in the instant matter.

¶10

2 . Leave granted.

¶11

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. 3. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 29.05.2017 passed by Mukesh Nasa Date: 2022.04.07 17:48:45 IST Reason:

¶12

the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No.4859 of 2017.

¶13

The aforestated writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowing Original Application No.4320 of 2014 preferred by the respondents herein on the basis of LARSGESS Scheme floated by the Indian Railways.

¶14

The aforestated Scheme was adversely commented upon by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in its judgment dated 27.04.2016 in CWP No.7714 of 2016. The Special Leave Petition arising therefrom was dismissed by this Court, whereafter the Scheme itself was terminated by Union of India on 05.10.2019.

¶15

Thereafter, various petitions came up before this Court including Writ Petition (Civil) No.1407 of 2019 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.78 of 2021. This Court has since then consistently refused to accept, acknowledge and uphold any right flowing from the provisions of the Scheme.

¶16

Viewed thus, the Tribunal was not justified in passing directions in the instant matter and the High Court was in error in rejecting the challenge raised by the appellants.

¶17

We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the view taken by the Tribunal and

¶18

the High Court and dismiss Original Application No.4320 of 2014.

¶19

This appeal is thus allowed with no order as to costs.

¶20

…………………….…………………….J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

¶21

……………………..……………………J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

¶22

……………………..……………………J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA )

¶23

New Delhi April 05, 2022

Union of India v. Bhagwan Deen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Bhagwan Deen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Bathla versus Central Goods and Service Tax

Sanchit Alagh versus Union of India

M/S Imperia Structure Ltd. versus Brig. Harit Pant

Milan Rana versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Sarepalli Sreenivas versus the State of Andhra Pradesh

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. versus M/S New India Detergents Ltd.