High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Ranjana Shandilya v. Union Of India & Others - WRIT - A No. 20943 of 2001  RD-AH 289 (4 January 2006)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 20943 OF 2001
Smt Ranjana Shandilya ------------- Petitioner
Union of India & Ors. ------------- Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
(By The Court)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11.12.2000 (Annex. 14), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, by which the application of the petitioner for compassionate employment has been rejected on the ground that prior to the death of the father of the petitioner, he was dismissed from service after holding the enquiry.
Shri H.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the original application filed before the Tribunal was not limited only to the relief of compassionate employment, but to various other reliefs also, and particularly to grant the family pension even to the employee who had been dismissed from service.
In the instant case the father of the petitioner remained absent from duty for a long time and so his service had been terminated by the order dated 4.5.1994 after holding the enquiry. Shri Pandey has submitted that the Circular dated 22.8.1991 deals with this kind of situation and in case the dependant of the said employee satisfies the authority that it was a case of deemed death after 7 years of his death, the case may be re-opened and he may be granted relief of family pension as well as the other reliefs.
From the judgment and order of the Tribunal, it is evident that no such argument had been advanced before the learned Tribunal. The case was limited to the grant of compassionate employment, which has rightly been rejected.
In State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1249 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar case, held as under:-
"We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena---- if a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party---- to call the attention of the very Judges------"
While deciding the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court placed reliance upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Madhusudan Chowdhri & Ors. Vs. Mst. Chandrabati Chowdhrain & Ors., AIR 1917 PC 30; and R.M.K.R.M. Somasundaram Chetty Vs. M.R.M.V.L. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1926 PC 136. In the latter case, it has been observed as under:-
"Judgment cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation."
A similar view had been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Sarat Chandra Vs. Bibhabati Debi, AIR 1921 Cal 584, observing that the record of the Judge is conclusive and it is not permissible either for the lawyer or litigant to contradict it except by moving application before the same Judge.
In The King Emperor Vs. Barendra Kumar Ghose, AIR 1924 Cal 257, the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court reiterated the same view observing that the judgment of the Court "is not to be criticized or circumvented; much less has to be exposed to any animad version."
In Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.V. Phaneendran, (1995) 6 SCC 45, the Apex Court has held that if a party has taken various grounds before the court below and not made submissions on all of that, it is not even desirable to remit the matter to the said Court. The Court held that "no doubt, several contentions had been raised on merit, the Tribunal dealt with only one issue. The prayer of the party that they may be given an opportunity to agitate those issues/questions by remitting the matter to the Tribunal, cannot be accepted as the party itself had chosen to agitate a limited number of issues and there can be no justification to remit the matter."
The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 662; and Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd & Ors. Vs. P. Surya Bhagwan, 2003, AIR SCW 2616.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, it emerges that the writ Court cannot conduct the enquiry as to what issues had been agitated before the Tribunal and if a party is aggrieved that some of the issues agitated by it have not been dealt by the Tribunal, the only remedy available to it is to file an application of Review before the Tribunal as those issues cannot be dealt with by the writ Court.
It has however to be seen whether any averment has been made in the writ petition that such an issue had been raised before the Tribunal. We find that in the writ petition no averment has been made that the issue agitated before this Court had also been agitated before the learned Tribunal. We are, therefore, not in a position to entertain the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.