Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 499 (KER)

Radha Krishna Panicker v. K. S. E. B.

2001-09-14

A.LEKSHMIKUTTY, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2001
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan. J. 1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the learned Single Judge was right in disposing this Original Petition alone while similar matters relating to the same issue is pending consideration. Appellants herein were some of the petitioners in O. P. 18695 of 2001. Original Petition was filed challenging Ext. P3 order dated 23.2.2001 revising the pension/family pension of the pensioners and family pensioners with effect from 1.7.98 only. Appellants were officers of the Board who retired from service during the period from 1.3.1997 to 31.6.1998. Since the Board had implemented order of revision of pension only with effect from 1.7.1998 the appellants would not get the benefit of the revised pension. Challenging the said order Writ Petition was preferred by the appellants. They also sought for a declaration that the difference adopted by the Board in the grant of terminal benefits to the petitioners alone is discriminatory and violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. A similar Writ Petition No. 17098/2001 was also filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board Pensioners Association raising identical points challenging the very same order has been admitted by the learned single Judge on 8.6.2001 and the same is pending consideration. When the present Writ Petition No. 18695/2001 came up for consideration before the learned single Judge on 12.7.2001 the learned Judge dismissed the same at the admission stage on merits by a detailed order. 2. We are of the view when a similar Writ Petition challenging the same order has already been admitted and pending consideration learned single Judge was not justified in dismissing the present Writ Petition at the admission stage. Learned Judge ought to have heard all the matters together and pass a common order. We may in this connection refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1345 . Apex Court took the view if there are two petitions involving identical point and one is admitted there is no justification in dismissing the other Writ Petition. Apex Court therefore set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court to be heard along with the pending matter. Apex Court took the view if there are two petitions involving identical point and one is admitted there is no justification in dismissing the other Writ Petition. Apex Court therefore set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court to be heard along with the pending matter. Apex Court held as follows: "After going through the record of the case it appears that one of the cases involving an identical point has already been admitted by the High Court but another identical petition was dismissed by the same High Court. This, therefore, creates a very anomalous position and there is a clear possibility of two contradictory judgments being rendered in the same case by the High Court. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 163 of 1985. This appeal is remanded to the High Court to be heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 5728 of 1984 which is pending hearing." We are of the view that if Writ Petitions raising the same issue is heard by different Judges on different occasions there will be possibility of contradictory judgments on the same issue. That may create an anomalous situation and create difficulties for administration of justice. In this connection it is appropriate to refer to the principle laid down by this Court in Joy v. Regional Transport Authority, 1998 (2) KLT 994 wherein this Court highlighted the necessity of consistency in rendering judgments. This Court held as follows: "Judicial discipline demands consistency in rendering judgments. A Judicial Officer may hold different views on various aspects. A Judicial Officer may err and pass contradictory orders inadvertently. But once it is brought to the knowledge of the Judicial Officer, he is duty bound to keep track of consistency. Inconsistent orders passed by a judicial officer almost in the same fact situation, and that too on the same day, would give rise to complaint of discriminatory treatment, which will undermine the people's faith in judicial system and the rule of law. It will cause resentment and anguish and make an imprint in the mind of the litigant that he has been discriminated. It will cause resentment and anguish and make an imprint in the mind of the litigant that he has been discriminated. A Judicial Officer may err and pass illegal orders, but he shall not err in consistency." There may be situation where pendency of the Original Petition might not have been brought to the knowledge of the learned single Judge inadvertently. It is for fitness of things that the parties in the litigation should bring to the notice of the Judge of the pendency of the similar matters and therefore contradictory judgments would be avoided as we see in the present case. We are of the view as and when the pendency of the O. P. concerning the same issue is brought to the knowledge of the Court the Court shall post all the cases together and hear the matter. In this case when O. P. concerning identical issue has already been admitted and pending consideration learned Judge was not justified in dismissing the O. P. at the admission stage by a detailed order. 3. In the above mentioned circumstance we are inclined to set aside the judgment of the learned single. We admit O. P. No. 18695/2001 to be heard along with O. P. 17098. We make it clear we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Appeal is allowed as above.