The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous after the petitioner submitted that gratuity and retirement benefits were released. The court directed the respondent to proceed with the law and noted that interim benefits would not merge in the final order.
Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.21204 OF 2014
ORDER:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further orders are necessary, since gratuity and other retirement benefits are released to the petitioner.
In view of the above submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. But this order will not come in the way of the respondent to proceed in accordance with law. Since the benefit will not merge in the final order.
I n Kala Bharathi Advertising v. Hemanath Vimalanath
Narichania and others), at para-22 it was held as follows:
“It is not permissible to a party to file writ petition, obtaining certain orders during the pendency of the petition and withdraw the same without getting proper adjudication of the issue involved therein and insist that the benefits of interim orders or consequential order passed in pursuance of the interim order passed by the writ Court would continue. The benefit of interim relief automatically gets withdrawn/neutralized on withdrawal of the said petition. In such a case concept of restitution becomes applicable otherwise the party would continue to get benefit of the interim order even after losing the case in the Court. The Court should also pass order expressly neutralizing the effect of all consequential orders passed in pursuance of the interim order passed by the Court. Such express direction may be necessary to check the rising tendency among the litigants to secure the relief as an interim measure and then avoid adjudication on merits.(Abhinayoo Ram v. State of U.P.((2008) 17 SCC 73)
With the above said observation, the Writ Petition is disposed
of.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date.12.04.2016 pab
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No. 21204 OF 2014 DATE: 12.04.2016
pab
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous upon submission that benefits have been released.
Whether the respondent can proceed with the law and seek restitution if the petitioner withdraws interim orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kala Bharathi Advertising v. Hemanath VimalanathReferred¶8
Kala Bharathi Advertising v. Hemanath Vimalanath
Narichania and othersReferred¶8
Narichania and others
Abhinayoo Ram v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Abhinayoo Ram v. State of U.P.
Kala Bharathi Advertising
Hemanath Vimalanath
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
