Aparbal Yadav vs The State Of Up
- SCC(2018) 5 SCC 363
- Neutral2018 INSC 325
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A Division Bench erred in modifying an interim order granting salary continuity to a long-serving employee (thirty years of service since 1987) based merely on "doubt," without considering the substantive reasons that compelled the Single Judge to grant interim relief, and such modification that restores the status quo of salary stoppage is unjustified. An appellate court should not interfere with an interim arrangement made by a lower court during the pendency of proceedings without due consideration of the grounds and circumstances that led to that interim order, particularly where the employee was receiving salary continuously prior to the disputed stoppage order and has rendered lengthy service.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
APARBAL YADAV APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is affected to the extent that the Division Bench of the High Court has interfered with the interim arrangement made by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition with regard to payment of salary. Taking note of the long service rendered by the appellant, the learned Single Judge passed the following order, on 31.08.2017:-
“...Stopping salary of a teacher, who is continuously working for last thirty years, only on the basis of doubt is not justified.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th January, 2012 stopping the salary of the petitioner is stayed.”
1
considering the background of the case and the reasons which compelled the learned Single Judge to pass the order, directed the writ petition to be finally disposed of expeditiously, but modifying the interim order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the status as was prevailing on the date of filing of the writ petition was to be maintained.
It is not in dispute that as on the date of filing of the writ petition, the appellant was without salary on account of the impugned orders.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we see no justification at all for the Division Bench to take such a view. After all, the appellant has been working since 1987 and was drawing salary till the impugned orders were passed in the year 2012.
5. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, to the extent it modified the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, is set aside and the appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The interim arrangement made by the learned Single Judge by order dated 31.08.2017 shall continue to operate till the disposal of the writ petition. The arrears of salary shall be released within a period of one month from today.
6. The writ petition may be disposed of on its own merits, uninfluenced by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court or of this Court.
2
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
8. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
.......................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 10, 2018.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free