Union Of India vs Bhagwan Deen
- SCC(2024) 14 SCC 592
- Neutral2022 INSC 391
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a scheme floated by the Union of India has been adversely commented upon by a High Court, the Union has terminated the scheme, and this Court has consistently refused to uphold any rights flowing from its provisions in multiple subsequent petitions, the Tribunal was not justified in passing directions granting relief to a party based on that scheme, and the High Court erred in rejecting the challenge to such directions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellants
VERSUS
BHAGWAN DEEN & ANR. Respondents
ORDER
1. Delay in filing the instant matter is condoned, subject to the appellants depositing a sum of Rs.25000/- towards costs for the respondents. The amount be handed over to the respondents within three weeks from today; and the amount shall be recovered from the concerned officials who are responsible for causing delay in the instant matter.
2. Leave granted.
3.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 29.05.2017 passed by Mukesh Nasa the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No.4859 of 2017.
4. The aforestated writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowing Original Application No.4320 of 2014 preferred by the respondents herein on the basis of LARSGESS Scheme floated by the Indian Railways.
5. The aforestated Scheme was adversely commented upon by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in its judgment dated 27.04.2016 in CWP No.7714 of 2016.
The Special Leave Petition arising therefrom was dismissed by this Court, whereafter the Scheme itself was terminated by Union of India on 05.10.2019.
6. Thereafter, various petitions came up before this Court including Writ Petition (Civil) No.1407 of 2019 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.78 of 2021. This Court has since then consistently refused to accept, acknowledge and uphold any right flowing from the provisions of the Scheme.
7. Viewed thus, the Tribunal was not justified in passing directions in the instant matter and the High Court was in error in rejecting the challenge raised by the appellants.
8. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court and dismiss Original Application No.4320 of 2014.
9. This appeal is thus allowed with no order as to costs.
…………………….…………………….J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
……………………..……………………J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
……………………..……………………J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
New Delhi April 05, 2022
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