AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.C. Patel, C.J.
CM No. 2810/2005
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
LPA No. 454/2005 and CM No. 2809/2005
In this appeal the appellant is aggrieved by the order made by the learned single Judge on 25.1.2005 in WP(C) No. 3349/1996.
The papers placed on record indicate that earlier writ petition was decided by the learned single Judge of this Court on 16.10.1998 and the judgment is placed on record at pages 32 to 36. While allowing the writ petition the learned single Judge, without adverting to the facts of the case, recorded a finding as under:-
I have dealt with the points raised by the petitioners for the revision of pay scales in similar matter i.e. C.W. No. 3790 of 1995 and that would govern to this case. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed.
The judgment delivered by the single Judge on 16.10.1998 was challenged by the respondents by preferring LPA No. 544/1998 and the Division Bench decided the appeal on 10.2.2004 and passed an order as under:-
Faced with this situation and to cut short the litigation between the parties both sides agreed for the disposal of the writ petition by the following consent order:-
Impugned order dated 16.10.1998 shall be set aside. Respondents writ petition CWP No. 3349/96 shall revive. Registry is directed to post this writ petition before the appropriate writ court on 25.1.2005. Writ Court is required to reconsider this petition and decide it on its merits after hearing the parties.
On remand the learned single Judge passed an order as under:-
The Division Bench has stated that the Order of the learned Single Judge is bereft of any reasons. I am entirely in agreement with the reasons mentioned in the Order dated 16.10.1998 passed by K. Ramamoorthy, J.
Petition is decided in terms of the said Order dated 16.10.1998.
Thus, the effect is that it is the order dated 16.10.1998 which will have to be reverted to for the view of the learned single Judge. This order, in turn, referred to and relied only on the reasoning of the order passed in a similar matter being CWP No. 3790/1995 which was also decided on the same day i.e. 16.10.1998. There was no separate discussion of the facts and law in the order dated 16.10.1998 passed in the present case, as noted above.
Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out today that the order dated 16.10.1998 in CWP No. 3790/1995, which forms the basis of the order in the present case, has been set aside by the Division Bench in LPA No. 271/1997 and connected matters being Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Staff Association and Ors. decided on 18.12.2003. The connected matters included LPA No. 93/1999 which arose from the decision in CWP No. 3790/1995. The result is that the very basis of the order in the present case does not survive.
It is not disputed that this judgment of the Division Bench was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge while passing the impugned order, nor was it adverted to at the stage when the order was passed in LPA No. 544/1998 in the present case. That being the position, there can be no question of relying on the reasoning of the order dated 16.10.1998 in CWP No.3790/1995 as the same has been set aside.
It will not be possible to decide the present appeal on merits since the facts and the law in the present case have not been discussed and the reliance is solely on the decision in CWP No. 3790/1995. It would thus be required of the learned single Judge to decide the writ petition on merits in the present case.
The impugned order dated 25.1.2005 is accordingly set aside in view of the decision of the Division Bench in LPA No. 271/1997 referred to above, and the Registry is directed to list the writ petition before the learned single Judge on 15.3.2005 to be considered on merits.
The interim arrangement made in terms of the earlier order of the Division Bench dated 10.2.2004 will continue to operate during the pendency of the writ petition.
The appeal and the stay application are accordingly disposed of.