Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15354
(Arising from Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.24912 of 2014)
Decided on: 20.08.2020
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Adv., Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, AOR, Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, Adv., Mr. Aniteja Sharma, Adv., Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Vinay Garg, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, AOR, Mr. Nitendra Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shri Venkatesh, Adv., Mr. Tarveen Singh Nandha, Adv., Ms. Nishtha Kumar, AOR, Mr. Vikas Maini, Adv., Mr. Suhael Buttan, Adv., Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv., Ms. Ayush Puri, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balram Das, AOR, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv., Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Adv., Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Adv.
Service matter -- Arrears of pay and allowances – Right of -- High Court has failed to record any reason for limiting the relief regarding arrears of pay and allowances to the date of filing of writ petition and not three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition – Held, in the facts of the case, the High Court ought to have granted relief as pressed by the appellant(s), namely, to pay arrears of pay and allowances with effect from three years preceding from the date of filing the stated writ petition -- Impugned judgment and order stands modified.
(Para 4-6)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard counsel for the parties.
3. The limited issue canvassed before us is in reference to the operative order passed by the High Court limiting the relief to fixation and fitment (of salary) and arrears of pay and allowances with effect from the date of filing of Writ Petition (C) No.614/2010.
4. Considering the argument of both sides, we find merit in the submission canvassed by the appellant(s) that the High Court has failed to record any reason for limiting the relief regarding arrears of pay and allowances to the date of filing of writ petition and not three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition, as was granted in Writ Petition (C) No.758/1995.
5. Although, this contention has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, in our opinion, in the facts of the present case, the High Court ought to have granted relief as pressed by the appellant(s), namely, to pay arrears of pay and allowances with effect from three years preceding from the date of filing the stated writ petition.
6. The impugned judgment and order stands modified only to this limited extent.
7. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
Appeal partly allowed.
********