State Of H.P. & Ors vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ

Heard learned Additional Advocate General.

The State has questioned the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP no.963/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the seniority-list of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Department of Public Works, Government of Himachal Pradesh as it stood on 31.12.2022 at the instance of respondents no.1 to 4 and directed the State to re-draw the seniority-list in the said cadre and issued further directions.

The private respondents no.5 to 17, who should have been aggrieved by the said order, have not filed any appeal challenging the said decision of the learned Single Judge, but the State has chosen to file this appeal.

In S.I. Rooplal and Another Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others AIR 2000 SC 594, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“25. Before concluding, we are constrained to observe that the role played by the respondents in this litigation is far from satisfactory. In our opinion, after laying down appropriate rules governing the service conditions of its employees, a State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the inter-se dispute between its employees. If any such dispute arises, the State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still if the matter is dragged to a judicial forum, the State should confine its role to that of an amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to arrive at a correct decision. Once a decision is rendered by a judicial forum, thereafter the State should not further involve itself in litigation. The matter thereafter should be left to the parties concerned to agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial forum delivers a judgment, files review petition, appeal etc. it gives an impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary interest which is uncalled for. This act of the State has only resulted in waste of time and money of all concerned.”

Thus, according to the above decision, the State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the inter-se dispute between its employees and if the matter is dragged in judicial forum by certain employees, who have inter-se dispute, the State should confine its role to that of an amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to arrive at a correct decision. Once a decision is rendered by a judicial forum, thereafter, the State should not further involve itself in litigation. The matter, thereafter, should be left to the parties concerned to agitate further, if they so desire.

In view of the above decision, which is binding on this Court, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.