S.R. Baghel vs State of M.P. (Now C.G.) and Others

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.—This M.C.C. was registered by the administrative orders of the then Chief Justice on 21.11.2001 which he had passed on perusal of the record of decided case O.A. No. 888 of 1998 on 20.6.2001. It may be mentioned that the said O.A. was decided by the State Administrative Tribunal (for short called "the SAT") at Raipur because at the relevant time, the SAT (since abolished) was functioning under the superintendence of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. On formation of Chhattisgarh High Court in the year 2000 all cases whether pending and decided by the M.P. High Court at Jabalpur arising out of districts of Chhattisgarh were sent to this Court with their record for information to this Court in 2001. This is how this file (O.A. No. 888/98) was sent to this Court.

It appears that His Lordship perused the file while inspecting the record of this case on administrative side and on reading the order formed an opinion that the order does not appear to be legal and contains some errors. It is due to this reason, the learned Chief Justice directed taking cognizance of the case for its hearing suo motu on merit on judicial side.

On perusal of the record of the case, we find that no party to O.A. has filed any writ petition against the order dated 20.6.2001 passed by the SAT till date and hence the said order has otherwise attained finality so far as parties to O.A. are concerned.

The issue involved in the original application was simple. A State Government employee filed the aforementioned O.A. against the Government claiming certain reliefs in his favour such as for grant of promotion, adjustment of his medical or and other accumulated leave and in lieu thereof prayed for grant of monetary benefits payable to him etc. The State contested the application on several grounds. The SAT by order dated 20.6.2001 partly allowed the Original Application and granted to the employee concerned partial relief in so far as his claim related to his accumulated leave was concerned.

It is with this background, now the question arises for consideration is whether this Court should interfere in the order passed by the SAT?

Having given our anxious consideration to the factual background of the case, and on perusal of the record of the case, we do not consider it proper to probe into the merits and demerits of the case by examining its legality and correctness.

In our opinion, had the State filed any writ petition challenging its legality and correctness, then perhaps it would have been proper for us in our writ jurisdiction to examine its legality on the grounds taken by the State but that did not happen because as stated supra no party filed any writ petition for challenging its legality. In other words both were satisfied with its legality and correctness.

When the aggrieved party is satisfied with the order which has also been implemented then we do not find any justification in reopening of the controversy suo motu. In our opinion, in order to invoke the suo motu jurisdiction of the Court, there has to be a sufficient ground for such invocation of power. Simple errors be that on facts or of law even if noticed on administrative side which does not involve any public cause or injury per se would not by itself permit, invocation of exercise of such extraordinary suo motu powers.

It is for this reason, we are of the considered opinion, that this does not appear to be a fit case for invocation of suo motu exercise of power.

It is now more than 14 years that this case is pending. There is every possibility that perhaps even the employee concern must have retired after receiving all benefits arising out of the order passed in his favour.

Taking all these facts into consideration, we are inclined to recall the administrative order dated 21.11.2001 by which this MCC was directed to be registered for its hearing on the merits. As a consequence of the foregoing discussion, the MCC fails and is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.