Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1632 (HP)

Union of India v. Lal Dass

2015-11-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Respondent in CWP No.1097 of 2012 has filed the reply and alongwith the reply, the respondent has annexed a copy of the judgment Annexure R-2 passed by the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.81669 of 2011. We have gone through the said judgment. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 9 and 10 of the said decision hereunder: “9. The action of the petitioner in assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore astonishes us, inasmuch as, the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 23.3.11 reveals, that on identical controversy pertaining to another employee of the postal organization, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench accepted the same plea, while disposing of OA 1246/01 by an order dated 18.4.02. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, was assailed by the Postal authorities before the Madras High Court in W.P. No.45465/02. However, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench was affirmed by the High Court. Dis-satisfied with the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, as also Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, the postal authorities approached the Supreme Court by preferring Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.138/09. The aforesaid special leave petition came to be dismissed on 17.10.08. 10. We are astonished because despite the fact that similar efforts made by the petitioner herein, on the similar controversy had failed upto the Supreme Court, the petitioners have chosen to contest the impugned order, in spite of the fact that the petitioners have not been able to point out single distinguishable feature as in the present controversy, from the one adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No.1264/01. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that exemplary costs deserves to be imposed on the postal authorities. We are satisfied, that such an attitude at the hands of the Union of India, especially the postal authorities, should be curbed with a strong hand, since the instant attitude which requires a court to decide the same issue repeatedly, even after the same submissions failed earlier. We accordingly impose Rs.1,00,000 as cost on the petitioners. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited with the Gulbarga Bar Association, High Court Unit, Gulbarga within three months from today for raising library for the Bar Association. We accordingly impose Rs.1,00,000 as cost on the petitioners. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited with the Gulbarga Bar Association, High Court Unit, Gulbarga within three months from today for raising library for the Bar Association. In case the aforesaid costs are not deposited within the time indicated above, the Registry of this Court is directed to re-list this case for recovery of costs.” 2. It is submitted that the issue involved in the instant petitions is similar to the issue already settled by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition, reference of which has been made in paragraph 9 of the judgment, quoted hereinabove. 3. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the decision of the Apex Court supra. 4. At this stage, Mr.Surender Verma, Advocate, stated that there is dispute about the legal representatives of deceased respondent Nanak Chand (CWP No.3307 of 2009). The legal representatives of the said deceased respondent have already been brought on record vide order, dated 7th September, 2015, for the purpose of this lis. It is made clear that we have not made any adjudication relating to the said issue. Therefore, the affected persons are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy. 5. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of, in view of the disposal of the writ petitions.