Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Narendra Nath Sinha vs State Of U.P. & Ors

Supreme Court5 December 1995K. Ramaswamy · B.N Kirpal

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an employee has been promoted and confirmed in a substantive position prior to the filing of a writ petition challenging the promotion of others, the employee's rights accrued before the filing of the writ petition are not affected by any subsequent judgment in the writ petition, and the employee retains the status quo and rights existing at the time the court granted stay of proceedings.

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

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER:NARENDRA NATH SINHA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995
BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.FAIZAN UDDIN (J)KIRPAL B.N. (J)
CITATION:1996 SCC (1) 523 1995 SCALE (7)252
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:

O R D E R It is not necessary to go into the controversy raised in this appeal since the contesting respondents have already retired by attaining superannuation. This Court while granting leave and admitting the appeal stated thus:

"Status quo pending disposal of the appeal as of today in the matter of reversion as a consequence of the judgment of the High Court. Future Promotions will be subject to the result of the appeal."

In the judgment of the High Court in first part in paragraph 46. it was stated thus:

"We would further like to clarify that any order that may be passed in these writ petitions should not effect any confirmation or substantive Promotion made Prior to the filing of the writ petitions."

In the ultimate paragraph of the judgment a contrary opinion was expressed stating that any action taken Prior to November 29, 1979 was illegal.

It is stated by the appellant that on his Promotion as Executive Engineer on July 12, 1979 though initially on ad hoc basis, he was confirmed and regularised as an Executive Engneer on June 30, 1980. The writ petition came No.2447 of 1980 came to be filed by V.N. Mittal on September 29, 1980. In view of the above facts and in view of the directions issued by this Court the consequence would be that the status quo which the appellant had Prior to the order passed by this Court, would continue. The rights accrued to the appellant Prior to the date of the filing of the writ petition would continue to be available to him, since his Promotion and confirmation as such was not quashed.

The Government, therefore, would work out the rights of the appellant accordingly.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 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