Rahul Sharma vs State Of M.P.

This intra court appeal assails the final order dated 10.07.2020 passed in WP 9528/2020 by which learned Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has disposed of the petition by directing the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of penalty of withholding of two annual increments non-cumulatively. While doing so, learned Single Judge declined to interfere on merits owing to the pendency of appeal before the Appellate Authority and also declined to grant interim relief as prayed for by holding that the interim relief granted in other cases of similar nature by Coordinate Benches do not have any precedential value.

Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 1345 is that if a petition is admitted for hearing then the Court while dealing with a similar petition at subsequent point of time ought not to dismiss the same in limine.

This Court has gone through the said judgment of Apex Court and finds that the said law would apply in cases where earlier petition/case has been admitted after being found to be worth admitting thereby having some compelling force upon the same court to admit a similar case at a subsequent point of time. However if the earlier case has not been admitted and mere notices are issued on admission then it is a clear indication that the court has not found the case to be worth admitting and therefore pendency of a case without admission would not compel in whatever little nature the same court at a subsequent point of time to entertain a similar petition. The similar case at a subsequent point of time may be dismissed in limine if the Coordinate Bench does not find the case to be worth admitting. This cannot be treated as improperiety or judicial indiscipline. This Court hastens to add that this is not a hard and fast straight jacket formula and as there may be cases where the same court dealing with similar cases dismisses the case in limine despite similar cases having been admitted earlier. No such fetters can be placed upon the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which is extraordinary and plenery in nature.

This Court is bolstered in its view by the decision of Apex Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 Para 28.

In view of above, it is obvious that learned Single Judge has rightly declined admission owing to pendency of appeal on the same issue before the Appellate Authority.

In view of above, reserving the right of appellant/petitioner to revisit the Court in case Appellate Authority rejects the appeal, this Court declines interference in the present WA and dimisses the same.