AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Balia. J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The order under challenge reads to have been made on concession by the learned Counsel for the parties about governing of case by decision in another writ petition No. 4115/93 decided on that very day. However we find that counsel for the petitioner was not present when the order was made, therefore, recording of concession by the learned Counsel for the parties is apparently in the order erroneous under appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, who was also counsel appearing for the petitioners in writ petition has urged that his case being a case of war injury pay is not governed by the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4115/93 and he also urges that his case is distinguishable from the one which was made the foundation of the order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4115/93. We find these contentions prima facie sustainable and are of the opinion that the appellant did not get a fair opportunity to place his case before the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 3.2.1998 under appeal and direct that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 334/94 be listed for hearing before the appropriate bench.
It has been pointed out by Mr. Vineet Mathur learned Counsel for the Union of India that the document dated 3.1.1988 an order directing the payment of the dearness relief to the petitioner appellant on war injury pay in addition to RC pension w.e.f. 1.7.1986 was not placed on record of the writ petition. It will be for the petitioner appellant to place the relevant document on record of the writ petition and raise necessary please on it, if so desired by making appropriate application for amending the pleadings.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.