I.C.A.R. & Ors vs Asit Baran Chaudhuri & Anr
- SCC(2007) 9 SCC 166
- Neutral2007 INSC 281
- AIRAIR 2007 SC Supp 466
- SCR[2007] 3 SCR 933
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a High Court directs consideration of an employee's claim for service benefits and the employee has already made a representation pursuant to that direction, the appellate court may require the authority to dispose of that representation within a specified timeframe in accordance with statutory rules, rather than remit the matter for fresh consideration. A direction by a High Court to consider the cases of employees junior to the respondent, issued without specific pleading or evidence regarding those junior employees' entitlements, is not justified and may be set aside on appeal; the authority should confine its consideration to the representation of the named respondent alone.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein directed the appellant-authorities to consider the claim of the respondent for benefit of Agricultural Research Service in scientist `S' Grade with effect from the date he became entitled. The High Court has also further observed that while considering aforesaid, the Authority concerned will also consider the cases of the employees junior to the respondent herein as mentioned in paragraph 37 of the Writ Petition. For the said purpose, the respondent herein was granted liberty to make a representation before appropriate Authority along with a copy of the order of the High Court and in such cases, the said Authority will decide the matter within two months from submission of the representation. It is pertinent to notice that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant-Authorities before the High Court. The High Court considered the matter in the absence of any argument being advanced on behalf of the appellants. Subsequently, a Review Petition was filed by the appellant herein which was also dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the above two orders, the above Civil Appeal has been filed. It is now stated by the learned senior counsel for the respondent herein that pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the respondent has already made a representation on 16.12.2004 to the Secretary, Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Ministry of Agriculture-Cum-The Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi and other authorities. Now that the representation was made pursuant to the directions given by the High Court, we direct the appellants herein to dispose of the representation within two weeks from today in accordance with the statutory rules and communicate the said order to the respondent herein immediately after the disposal of the said representation. While disposing of the Writ Petition, the High Court has also directed the concerned authorities to consider the cases of the employees junior to the respondent herein as mentioned in paragraph 37 of the Writ Petition. The said direction, in our opinion, is not justified and uncalled for. We, therefore, set aside that direction and direct the appellant-authorities to consider the representation made by the respondent herein alone in accordance with law and as indicated above.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
No costs.
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