Miss Lucy
← All judgments

The State Of Up Thr The Chief Secretary vs Israr Ahmad .

Supreme Court8 January 2018Kurian Joseph · Amitava Roy

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

1

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