Disposed

Govind Singh Bisht and Others v. Umesh Kabadwal and Another

Uttarakhand HC3 Apr 2019CLCON/156/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court clerked a Contempt Petition arising from disputes over seniority determination in cooperative societies. The petitioner argued that the underlying grievance was resolved as the seniority list was finalized by the Registrar per higher court directions and time had passed for re-approach, suggesting no continuing cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed as the grievance regarding the seniority list was resolved by the final determination made by the Registrar.

Govind Singh Bisht and Others Vs Umesh Kabadwal and Another — Uttarakhand HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Contempt Petition (CLCON No. 156 of 2013)

¶3

Govind Singh Bisht and Others ..…Petitioners Versus Umesh Kabadwal and Another .…Respondents

¶4

Advocate : Mr. D.K. Bankoti, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate for the petitioner

¶5

Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent No. 1. Mr. K.K. Shah, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶6

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶7

A dispute pertaining to the interse determination of seniority came up for consideration at the behest of the 7^th petitioner (Sobhan Singh Khani), who had filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 234 of 2003, Navin Chandra Joshi and others v. Registrar Co-operative Societies Uttaranchal, Dehradun and others . The said writ petition was considered by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has passed the judgement on 25.04.2006 with the following directions:-

¶8

“13. For the reasons, as discussed above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed with the following directions:-

¶9

The petitioners shall be treated senior to the respondents No. 3 and 4 in grade III and they shall be given promotions as per the rules subject to their service record if the vacancies are available.

¶10

Impugned promotions made in January 2003 of respondents No. 3 and 4 shall not make them senior as against petitioners in grade II after they or any of them are promoted.”

¶11

The judgement of the learned Single Judge was put to challenge before the Division Bench and the Division Bench, vide its judgement dated 11.11.2009 had set aside the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 25.04.2006 and has passed fresh directions, directing the respondents to re-determine and finalize the seniority list

¶12

¶13

after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Compositively, the directions as given by the Division Bench is quoted hereunder:-

¶14

“In view of the above, we have no other option except to set aside the judgment and order dated 25.04.2006 passed by learned Single Judge. Both the Special Appeals and the writ petition no. 234 (SB) of 2003 are disposed of with the following directions:

¶15

i. The order of promotion dated 04.01.2003 is quashed. ii. The Registrar Cooperative Societies shall decide and finalize the seniority list after giving full opportunity of being heard to both the parties within eight weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order placed before him.

¶16

iii. Persons found senior as per the seniority list, finalized by the Registrar, would be promoted with retrospective effect from 04.01.2003 on the said vacancies existing on that date.

¶17

iv. In the event the private respondents are not found to be senior to the petitioners in the writ petition, the benefit given to them pursuant to the promotion order will not be recovered.”

¶18

Being aggrieved against the judgement of the Division Bench dated 11.11.2009 rendered in Special Appeal No. 32 of 2006, Govind Singh Bisht and another v. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others and Special Appeal No. 33 of 2006, Secretary/General Manager, District Cooperative Bank, District Almora v. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others, preferred an SLP being SLP No. 3382-3383 of 2010, Jagat Singh Dev & Others v. Regr. Coop Soc. Uttranchal and Ors. which has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court by the judgement dated 22.08.2012 and while dismissing the SLP, the following observations have been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court :-

¶19

“In the circumstances, we dismiss these SLPs with the observation that any one of the petitioners, if so advised, is free to approach the High Court in a separate writ petition and seek such redressal of his/her grievance against the final seniority list in the same as may be permissible in law. We further direct that the protection granted by us

¶20

¶21

against reversion in terms of our order dated 25.01.2010 shall continue for a period of three weeks from today. We make it clear that while considering any prayer for grant of interim relief in the fresh petitions that may be filed before the High Court, the High Court shall remain uninfluenced by the fact that we have granted interim protection to the petitioners no matter for a limited period. No costs.”

¶22

The said judgement, giving liberty to each of the petitioner of the writ petition to re-approach the High Court as against the final determination of their seniority, however, the interim protection granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 25.01.2010 was permitted to be continued for a period of three weeks from the date of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶23

It is the case of the counsel for the petitioner that, in all probability, the controversy pertaining to re-determination of seniority as directed by the orders of the Court must have been determined, because it is not clear as to whether the petitioner has re-approached the Court as against the final determination of seniority as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, consequently, it seems that with the passage of time, since the petitioner has now attained the age of superannuation too, no cause of action as such survives for the petitioners, hence he prays for that the contempt petition be closed as the grievance of the petitioner must have been resolved. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands closed.

¶24

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 03.04.2019

¶25

Mahinder/

Govind Singh Bisht and Others v. Umesh Kabadwal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Singh Bisht and Others v. Umesh Kabadwal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moon Tour And Travels Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Rizwan Ahmad and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Anand Singh Tomar Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Mani Pushpak Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Niraj Mishra Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Sanjay Vs State of Uttarakhand