Bhankra Byas Managing Board vs Suresh & Anr

Supreme Court5 May 2009H.L.Dattu · Tarun Chatterjee

SCC(2009) 7 SCC 515
Neutral2009 INSC 673
SCR[2009] 8 SCR 109

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An interim order granting final relief at the admission stage of a second appeal is not justified, particularly where the order directs the appellant to provide employment based on the respondent's statement that he would forego past benefits, when the substantive question of the respondent's legal status as an heir remains pending adjudication in the appeal itself.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3237 OF 2009[Arising out of SLP)No.12837 OF 2008]

Bhankra Byas Managing Board ...Appellant

VERSUS

Suresh & Anr. ..Respondents

JUDGMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against an interim order

dated 3rd of April, 2008 passed by the High Court

of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular

Second Appeal No.2865 of 2007 whereby the

High Court, while admitting the appeal preferred

by the appellant, has granted final relief to the

1respondent No.1 by directing the appellant to

give compassionate appointment to him. In our

view, the High Court was not justified in granting

such interim order at the admission stage. It is an

admitted position that the second appeal was

admitted for final disposal. A suit was filed by the

respondent No.1 for declaration that he was a

legal heir of the deceased employee of the

appellant being his adopted son. The said suit,

however, was decreed and affirmed by the first

appellate court against which the appellant has

filed the second appeal in the High Court which is

pending. Although a decree has been passed

against the appellant, but in the interim stage of

the second appeal, the appellant could not be

directed to appoint the respondent No.1, if on the

statement of the respondent No.1 he was ready

to forego the past benefit if he was taken in

service. Accordingly, the interim order granted by

2the High Court is set aside. The High Court is

directed to decide the pending second appeal

within six months from the date of supply of a

copy of this order to it.

3. We make it clear that we have not gone into the

merits of the second appeal which shall be

decided by the High Court in accordance with law

after giving proper hearing to the parties.

4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will

be no order as to costs.

......................................J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

New Delhi; ......................................J. May 05, 2009. [H.L.DATTU]

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