Union of India and ors v Ram Kumar Thakur

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date: 2008-10-15
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned order of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. The writ appeal shall be heard by the High Court on merits. The writ appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India and ors

Respondents

Ram Kumar Thakur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. Sharna, ASG.
• Binu Tamta
• Sushma Suri

Counsels for Respondents

• Om Prakash Mishra
• Prathibha Shukla
• Ghan Shyam Vasisht

Case Synopsis & Summary

Union of India and ors v Ram Kumar Thakur concerns a service dispute where a single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ordered reinstatement of an employee. The employer challenged the order by filing a writ appeal, but while the writ appeal was pending, the respondent was reinstated in pursuance of the single Judge’s judgment, and the High Court later dismissed the writ appeal as infructuous on that basis. The Union contended that the mere implementation of the interim remedy to avoid contempt proceedings did not extinguish the appellants’ right to challenge the correctness of the order on merits. The respondent defended the approach, arguing that the reinstatement under the single Judge’s order rendered the writ appeal infructuous. The Supreme Court held that even where interim relief is not granted and the order is implemented, this does not bar the appeal from being heard on its merits. Citing Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P., Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Karnataka, and Union of India v. Narender Singh, the Court reaffirmed that compliance with High Court directions cannot automatically defeat a pending appeal. It also referred to Union of India v. G.R. Prabhakar & Ors. and observed that such compliance cannot lead to an inference that the appeal has become infructuous. The impugned High Court order was set aside, and the writ appeal was to be adjudicated on merits.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the High Court's dismissal of the writ appeal as infructuous cannot bar the challenge on merits; even if an interim order is implemented to avoid contempt, it does not deprive the party of the right to appeal and seek adjudication on the correctness of the order. They contend that reinstatement pursuant to a single-judge order does not preclude appellate scrutiny and that the writ appeal should be heard on merits by the High Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that since the respondent employee was reinstated pursuant to the single-judge judgment, the writ appeal before the Division Bench had become infructuous and should be dismissed as such.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P.	2006(5) SCC 127	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that non-grant of interim relief and implementation of order does not render an appeal infructuous.
Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Karnataka	2005(10) SCC 383	Positive	Cited for the same principle regarding maintainability of appeals despite implemented orders.
Union of India v. Narender Singh	2005(6) SCC 106	Positive	Affirmed view that compliance with High Court directions does not render an appeal infructuous.
Union of India v. G.R. Prabhakar & Ors.	1973(4) SCC 183	Positive	Noted for para 23 statement that compliance with directions cannot render an appeal infructuous.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 494 A ## UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. }-- ; _v._ B RAM KUMAR THAKUR (Civil Appeal No.6112 of 2008) OCTOBER 15, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] I >--· ) ## _Service Law:_ ... c _Re-instatement_ - _Single Judge of High Court ordered re-instatement of employee_ - _Employer filed writ appeal cha//enging the order bµt at the_ same _time implemented the order by re-instating the employee_ - _Division Bench of High Court dismissed the writ appealas infructuous_ - _Propriety of_ - _Held:_ D _Not proper_ - _Writ appeal to be heard by Division Bench on merits._ The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed writ _[t--]_ appeal filed by the Appellants as infructuous on the E[ground ][that_ ][Respondent-employee had been. reinstated ] in service pursuant to the judgment of the Single Judge which was impugned in the writ appeal. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that merely because the . order of. the Single . . Judge . was implemented F[to ][avoid ][possible ][contempt proceedings ][that ][did ][not ][take ] a.way the right of the appellants to question the correct\ness of .the said order and file appeal thereagainst. ## Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Even in cases where interim relief is not G granted in favour of the applicant and the order is implemented that does not furnish a ground for not entertaining the appeal to be heard on merits. [Para 4] [496-D] ~ 494 H' 495 ------! ---', ' # UNION OF INDIA & ORS. _v._ RAM KUMAR THAKUR 1.2. The impugned order of the High court cannot be A maintained and is set aside. The writ appeal shall be heard by the High Court on merits. [Para 7] [497-8] _Nagar Mahapalika v. State of UP_ (2006) 5 SCC 127; _Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Kamataka_ (2005) 10 SCC 383 and _Unio!] of India v. Narender Singh_ (2005) 6 SCC 106 - relied on. B ## CASE LAW REFERENCE |c2006) 5|c2006) 5|c2006) 5sec121|reliedon|Para4|c| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |(2005) 1|(2005) 1|(2005) 1o sec383|reliedon|Para4|| |(2005) 6|(2005) 6|(2005) 6sec106|reliedon|Para 6|| CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6112 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2006 of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in CDLSW No. 150 of 2006 in Rest (CDLSW) No. D-114/2004 C/W Rest (LPA) No. 13 of2006 D E A. Sharna, ASG., Binu Tamta and Sushma Suri for the Appellants. _-·-Y_ Om Prakash Mishra, Prathibha Shukla and Ghan Shyam Vasisht for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. G .. ~ 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellants on the ground that the respondent had been reinstated in service pursuant to the judgment of the learned single Judge which was impugned in the H SUPREME COURT REPORTS 496 [2008] 14 S.C.R. A writ appeal filed before the Division Bench. The High Court held that the appeal had therefore become infructuous. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order of the High Court has no legal basis. Merely beB[cause the impugned order ·before the High Court was imple-] mented to avoid possible contempt proceedings that did not take away the right of the appellants to prefer an appeal and question correctness of the impugned order. \ _r_ _t--_ 3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand c supported the judgment. · . 4. It has been noted by this Court that if even in cases where interim relief is not granted in favour of the applicant and the order is implemented that does not furnish a ground for not D[entertaining the appeal to be heard on merits. (See : ] _[Nagar ] Mahapalika v. State of U.P_ [2006(5) SCC 127]. Similar view was also take in _Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Kamataka_ r2oos(1 O) sec 383]. _!---_ 5. In _Union of India v. GR. Prabhava/kar_ & _Ors._ [1973(4) E sec 183] it was observed at para 23 as follows: "Mr Singhvi, learned counsel, then referred us to the fact that after the judgment of the High Court the State Government has passed an order on March 19, 1971., the F effect of which is to equate the Sales Tax Officers of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade Ill of Bombay. This order, in our opinion, has been passed by the State Government only to comply with the directions given by the High Court. It was made G during a period when the appeal against the judgment was pending in this Court. The fact that the State Government took steps to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal by the Union of India has become infructuous." G ~·- _1-_ H 497 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. _v._ RAM KUMAR THAKUR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 6. Above position was also noted in _Union of India v._ A _Narender Singh_ [2005(6) SCC 106]. 7. Above being the position the impugned order of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. The writ appeal shall be heard by the High Court on merits ~bout which we express no opinion. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. 8 8.8.B. Appeal allowed.