AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aftab H. Saikia, C.J.—Heard Mr. Tashi Rabstan, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anil Khajuria, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
This letters patent appeal preferred at the behest of the official appellants, witnesses a challenge to the Judgment and order dated 11.7.2002,
passed by Writ Court in SWP No. 1792/2002.
The sole respondent herein has initiated the instant writ proceedings only on the ground that since one R.M. Atul, writ petitioner in SWP No.
870/2000, got the relief by way of decision rendered in Judgment and order dated 8.4.2002 passed by learned Single Judge while disposing of the
said writ petition, whereby his seniority was restored back to position at Serial number. 12, primarily relying on a communication dated
9.3.1998/1.4.1998, he, being the respondent herein (writ petitioner in the instant petition, SWP No. 1792/2002), claims that he being senior to
R.M. Atul, also should get the same benefit of the judgment referred to above.
On consideration of his such prayer, writ petition No. 1792/2002 was disposed of on 11.7.2002, extending the same benefit to the petitioner
with a direction to the official respondents, the appellants herein, to consider the claim of the petitioner as regards his seniority and to take decision
within a period of three months from the date copy of order received.
Judgment and order dated 8.4.2002 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 870/2000, as mentioned above, has been assailed before this Court
through LPA (S) No. 469/2002 by the official respondents as the appellants. This Court vide order dated 4.8.2010, has allowed the letters patent
appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment and order.
Since this appeal is an offshoot of the writ petition being SWP No. 870/2000 and relief was also granted to the respondent herein in terms of the
directions given in the said writ petition, i.e., SWP No. 870/2000, we find that impugned judgment and order deserves interference in the light of
the decision rendered in LPA(S) No. 469/2002 on 4.8.2010, and, accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. Impugned judgment and order stands
set aside.