Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

IN RE:REGULARIZATION OF CLASS IV EMPLOYEES OF HIGH COURT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


In Re:Regularization of Class IV Employees of High Court - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 54860 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 1750 (18 December 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

W.P. No.54860 of 2004

ORDER

  (In Re : Regularisation of Class IV employees of High Court)

I have perused the order dated 17.12.2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon. V.M. Sahai and Hon. Tarun Agrawala, JJ. which as directed by the said Bench was placed before me by the Registrar General of the Court.

A perusal of the said order would show that the Division Bench has directed the Registrar General and the Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to place the entire records of Allahabad and Lucknow of all daily wagers, casual labourers and class-III ad-hoc employees before them on 20.12.2004.

In my opinion, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 14 of Chapter-V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and the ratio laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Para 36 in the case of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Vs. Acting Chief Justice and others reported in Allahabad Weekly Cases 1996 at page 644, the case cannot be treated as tied-up or part-heard of the aforesaid Bench.

Rule 14 of Chapter-V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 reads thus :-

14. Tied up cases -   (1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal.  A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench.

                         (2) When a criminal revision has been admitted on the question of severity of sentence only, it shall ordinarily be heard by the Bench admitting it.

A perusal of Rule-14(1) would make it manifest that a case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to be issued to the opposite party or passed an ex-parte order, shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench.

A  perusal of the order dated 17.12.2004 passed by Hon. V.M. Sahai and Hon. Tarun Agrawala, JJ. shows that it merely directed the Registrar General and the Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to place the entire records of Allahabad as well as Lucknow Bench, of all daily wagers, casual labourers and class-III ad-hoc employees before them on 20.12.2004 and the aforesaid order, which was passed by them, was an ex-parte order.  Since it was an ex-parte order, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 14(1), it would not be deemed to be a part heard case of the aforesaid Bench.

I am fortified in my view by the observations contained in para 36 of the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs. Acting Chief Justice and others (supra), which were made while interpreting Rule 14(1) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which read thus :-

"The other part of sub rule (1) lays down in clear terms that the case in which the Bench has merely issued notice to the opposite party or had passed an ex-parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by that Bench.  This provision has been made to specify that a case does not become part-heard merely by passing of interim order.  It also lays down that if notices are directed to be issued to the opposite party, the case does not become part-heard case of that Bench.  The consequences are obvious.  If the Division Bench which has merely passed an ex parte order or  directed notice to be issued to the opposite party locate it is a part heard case or passed an order that it will come up before that Bench for "further hearing" or as a "part heard" or as a "tied up" case, the order would be in violation of the Rules of Court and therefore, a nullity.  Such an order would be without jurisdiction and would not confer any jurisdiction on the Bench concerned to proceed with that case unless the case is listed before them again under the orders of the Chief Justice.  In a situation, where any order has been passed indicating such a case on the order sheet or on the main writ petition to be a part heard or tied up case, the Chief Justice inspite of the order would retain his jurisdiction to list it before the appropriate Bench for hearing as the order limiting the case to be a part-heard or tied up would be in violation of the Rules of Court and would not bind the hands of the Chief Justice from listing that case as a "seen" case before any other Bench rather than as a 'tied up' case before that very Bench."

                                                  (emphasis supplied)

In the circumstances, I withdraw the case (in Re: Regularisation of class IV employees of High Court) from the Division Bench of Hon. V.M. Sahai and Hon. Tarun Agarwala, JJ.  Considering the importance of the matter and the issues raised in the order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the said Bench including the jurisdiction of a Division Bench of the High Court of suo moto taking cognizance as a Public Interest Litigation, I assign it to a larger Bench comprising of :- (1) Hon. S.R. Alam, J. (2) Hon. Pradeep Kant, J. (3) Hon. U.K. Dhaon, J. (4) Hon. Sushil Harkauli, J. (5) Hon. Khem Karan, J.

The larger Bench shall hear the case on 20.12.2004, at 10.00 a.m. at Allahabad.  The relevant records stipulated in the order dated 17.12.2004 shall be produced by the Registrar General and the Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow before it.

                                                   ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                                                              18.12.2004


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.