2004 JTR(SC) 655
2005 25 AIC 328 ; 2005 AIR(SC) 284 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 6955 ; 2005 AllLJ 214 ; 2004 4 AWC 3201 ; 2004 103 FLR 568 ; 2004 4 JLJR(SC) 315 ; 2004 8 JT 264 ; 2005 LIC 465 ; 2005 1 LLJ 505 ; 2005 1 LLN 37 ; 2004 4 PLJR(SC) 211 ; 2004 4 RLW(Raj) 637 ; 2004 4 RSJ 716 ; 2004 8 Scale 536 ; 2005 9 SCC 733 ; 2005 SCC(L&S) 560 ; 2004 Supp5 SCR 74 ; 2004 4 SCT 485 ; 2004 6 SLR 424 ; 2005 1 UPLBEC 1 ; 2004 7 Supreme 231
2004(7) Supreme 231
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. -Appellants
versus
Ram Sukhi Devi -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6510 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1343 of 2004)
Decided on 5-10-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Javed M. Rao, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ms. Rashmi Singh and Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Vinay Arora and Sanjay Jain, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a writ jurisdiction final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
UTTAR PRADESH RECRUITMENT OF DEPENDANTS OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS DYING-IN-HARNESS RULES : R.197
(A) The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (1974 Rules), read in conjunction with the Constitution of India Article 226, govern the grant of compassionate appointments to dependents of government servants dying in harness. The 1974 Rules, as modified by the 1996 Rules, fixed a cutoff date of 1.10.1986 and, through a Government Order dated 26.10.1998, clarified that parttime employees were not eligible for such benefits. These statutory and regulatory provisions operate within the framework of judicial review under Article 226, where interim relief must not prejudice the merits and must respect the scheme of the enabling rules. The present Writ Petition challenges an order that ignored the said Government Order and prematurely granted the principal relief at the interlocutory stage, invoking the Courts power under Article 226 to ensure procedural and substantive legality.
(B) Key legal principles include that interim orders must not usurp the merits or override explicit statutory provisions; courts must not grant the principal relief at an interim stage without justifiable reasons; and administrative action must conform to the rules governing compassionate appointments. Humanitarian considerations cannot override the mandatory requirements of the Rules and the Government Order. The doctrine of res judicata and the hierarchy of remedies under Article 226 demand that substantive issues be decided at the final disposal of the petition.
Facts of the case:
A respondent, whose husband was appointed as a parttime tubewell operator in 1989, sought a compassionate appointment under the 1974 Rules on the ground that her husband died leaving her with four children. The Government Order dated 26.10.1998 excluded parttime employees from the benefit, and her application was rejected. A Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, directed the authorities to consider her claim, ignoring the Government Order. The Division Bench upheld that direction on purported humanitarian grounds, prompting the present special leave appeal.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench acted judicially unsustainably by granting the final relief at an interim stage without examining the merits or indicating any valid basis for ignoring the Government Order. The approach undermines the rule of law and the structured procedure for adjudicating petitions under Article 226.
Issues:
Whether an interim order can direct a principal relief that contradicts an applicable Government Order; whether humanitarian grounds alone can justify ignoring explicit statutory eligibility criteria at the interim stage; and whether the High Court can bypass an examination of merits at the interlocutory stage.
Ratio Decidendi:
An interim order must not grant the principal relief unless there are justifiable and compelling reasons, must respect the scheme of the enabling rules, and must not override specific Government Orders. Courts must not interfere with the merits at an interim stage without a clear and valid basis, as doing so distorts the appellate or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the impugned order setting aside the Government Order and directing a compassionate appointment is set aside. The matter is directed to the High Court to dispose of the petition expeditiously, preferably within six months, without prejudice to the merits.
(A) The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (1974 Rules), read in conjunction with the Constitution of India Article 226, govern the grant of compassionate appointments to dependents of government servants dying in harness. The 1974 Rules, as modified by the 1996 Rules, fixed a cutoff date of 1.10.1986 and, through a Government Order dated 26.10.1998, clarified that parttime employees were not eligible for such benefits. These statutory and regulatory provisions operate within the framework of judicial review under Article 226, where interim relief must not prejudice the merits and must respect the scheme of the enabling rules. The present Writ Petition challenges an order that ignored the said Government Order and prematurely granted the principal relief at the interlocutory stage, invoking the Courts power under Article 226 to ensure procedural and substantive legality.
(B) Key legal principles include that interim orders must not usurp the merits or override explicit statutory provisions; courts must not grant the principal relief at an interim stage without justifiable reasons; and administrative action must conform to the rules governing compassionate appointments. Humanitarian considerations cannot override the mandatory requirements of the Rules and the Government Order. The doctrine of res judicata and the hierarchy of remedies under Article 226 demand that substantive issues be decided at the final disposal of the petition.
Facts of the case:
A respondent, whose husband was appointed as a parttime tubewell operator in 1989, sought a compassionate appointment under the 1974 Rules on the ground that her husband died leaving her with four children. The Government Order dated 26.10.1998 excluded parttime employees from the benefit, and her application was rejected. A Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, directed the authorities to consider her claim, ignoring the Government Order. The Division Bench upheld that direction on purported humanitarian grounds, prompting the present special leave appeal.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench acted judicially unsustainably by granting the final relief at an interim stage without examining the merits or indicating any valid basis for ignoring the Government Order. The approach undermines the rule of law and the structured procedure for adjudicating petitions under Article 226.
Issues:
Whether an interim order can direct a principal relief that contradicts an applicable Government Order; whether humanitarian grounds alone can justify ignoring explicit statutory eligibility criteria at the interim stage; and whether the High Court can bypass an examination of merits at the interlocutory stage.
Ratio Decidendi:
An interim order must not grant the principal relief unless there are justifiable and compelling reasons, must respect the scheme of the enabling rules, and must not override specific Government Orders. Courts must not interfere with the merits at an interim stage without a clear and valid basis, as doing so distorts the appellate or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.
Result:
The appeal is allowed and the impugned order setting aside the Government Order and directing a compassionate appointment is set aside. The matter is directed to the High Court to dispose of the petition expeditiously, preferably within six months, without prejudice to the merits.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. The State of U.P. calls in question legality of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Special Appeal filed by the present appellants. The Division Bench upheld the interim order passed by learned Single Judge dated 24.6.2002 in Writ Petition No. 3334/2002 (SS).
3. Background facts as projected by the appellants in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent s husband was appointed as a part-time tubewell operator on 14.6.1989. While Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (in short the 1974 Rules ) were in operation, in compliance with the judgment passed by this Court in some cases on 16.12.1996 Uttar Pradesh Sinchai Vibhag Mein Nalkoop Chalakon Ke Pado Par Anshalik Nalkoop Chalakon Ke Viniyamitikaran Niyamawali, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Rules ) was notified and same was made applicable with effect from the date of notification. Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, the cut off date was fixed to be 1.10.1986. On 26.10.1998 a Government order was issued by the State Government clarifying that under the 1974 Rules benefit could not be given to the dependents of the part-time employees.
4. On 15.11.2001 husband of the respondent died leaving behind the respondent and four children. On 3.4.2002 respondent submitted an application before the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division-I, Sitapur (appellant No.4 herein) seeking appointment under the 1974 Rules. Her request was turned out on the ground that she was not eligible for such appointment under the 1974 Rules. Writ Petition No. 3334/2002 (SS) was filed by the respondent, inter alia, seeking for a direction to the present appellants to appoint the writ petitioner in any suitable Class IV post under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. Learned Single Judge while issuing notice directed that the competent authorities shall consider the writ petitioner s claim of giving compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules ignoring the Government Order dated 26.10.1988 within the stipulated period. Legality of the order was challenged before the Division Bench by filing a Special Leave. The same has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.
5. The High Court disposed of the appeal directing that the present respondent should be given a Class IV appointment within the stipulated time. It was observed that on the facts of the case without going into the legal merits on a humanitarian consideration, compassionate appointment should be made.
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the direction given by the learned Single Judge that the appointment should be made during the pendency of the writ application ignoring the Government Order dated 26.10.1998 is clearly unsustainable. Division Bench of the High Court did not consider legality of the order and without going into the merits straightaway disposed of the appeal on purportedly humanitarian ground. It was submitted that the direction as given by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench run counter to the specific provision in the operative Government Order.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have acted on humanitarian grounds and this Court should not interfere with any interim order passed by learned Single Judge which has been upheld by the Division Bench.
8. To say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensible. The final relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. There was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to why the Government Order dated 26.10.1998 was to be ignored. Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government Order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. [See Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985 (1) SCC 260 at p. 265), State of Rajasthan v. M/s Swaika Properties (1985 (3) SCC 217 at p.224), State of U.P. and Ors. v. Visheshwar (1995 Supp (3) SCC 590), Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa and Ors. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 593), Shiv Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 726) and Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Health and Medical Education Department Civil Sectt., Jammu v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli (1995 Supp (4) SCC 214).] No basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge thought the course as directed was necessary to be adopted. Even it was not indicated that a prima facie case was made out though as noted above that itself is not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we have interfered primarily on the ground that the final relief has been granted at an interim stage without justifiable reasons. Since the controversy lies within a very narrow compass, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
9. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
*****************