The State Of Up Thr The Chief Secretary vs Israr Ahmad .
- SCC(2018) 2 SCC 672
- Neutral2018 INSC 8
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Division Bench of a High Court has upheld an order directing payment of revised pay-scale with interest, and the appellate court finds no justification for awarding interest on the revised pay-scale, even though the State does not challenge the entitlement to the revised pay-scale itself, the award of interest should be vacated and only the principal amount of revised pay-scale, if not yet disbursed, shall be paid.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 230 OF 2009]
THE STATE OF UP & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ISRAR AHMAD & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Application for setting aside abatement is
allowed. Delay in filing the application for
substitution is condoned and the application for
substitution is allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The State approached this Court, aggrieved by an
order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench in Special Appeal No. 225 of 2001.
4. The Division Bench declined to interfere with the
order dated 19.07.2000 passed by the learned Single
Judge. The learned Single Judge issued a direction
to pay the revised pay-scale to the respondents along
with interest at the rate of 12%. Signature Not Verified
5. This Court had limited the notice on the issue of Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2018.01.10 12:34:19 IST Reason:
interest. Having regard to the contentious issues
raised in the matter, we are of the view that there 2
was no justification for granting interest on the
revised pay-scale. Now that the State is not keen on
the challenge of parity and the consequential revised
pay-scale, we are of the view that the order on
interest should be vacated. Ordered accordingly.
6. The appeal is disposed of with a further
direction that in case the emoluments in the revised
pay-scale have not yet been granted, the same shall
be paid within three months from today.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ AMITAVA ROY ]
New Delhi;
January 08, 2018.
3
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 230/2009 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-12-2007 in SA No. 225/2001 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)
THE STATE OF UP & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ISRAR AHMAD & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR SUBSTITUTION OF LRS ON IA 3/2014) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. ON IA 4/2014) (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 5/2014 FOR SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT ON IA 6/2014)
Date : 08-01-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Vinay Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nagendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed
non-reportable Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
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