1. Promotion to Executive Engineer — Interim stay of posting due to third-party challenge — Deprivation of post and salary — Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : D.P.Wadhwa : S.C.Agrawal
Paramjeet Singh
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 1497 , 1498 of 1998
Date of Decision : 3/6/98
Important Points
A writ petition for posting and salary is not infructuous merely because an interim order causing the deprivation is vacated; the court must direct the restoration of the post and payment of salary for the period of deprivation.
Subject
Service Law - Posting and Salary
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Posting and Salary - Interim Order - Writ petition dismissed as infructuous by High Court after an interim order staying a posting was vacated - Where an employee is deprived of a post and salary due to an interim order, the subsequent vacation of such order does not render the petition for posting and back wages infructuous - High Court is required to give appropriate directions regarding posting and payment of salary for the period of deprivation. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An employee was promoted to a specific cadre and posted to a particular location. Another employee challenged the transfer and obtained an interim order staying the first employee's posting. Consequently, the first employee was deprived of the post and salary. Later, the High Court dismissed the challenge by the second employee and vacated the interim order. However, the High Court dismissed the first employee's petition for posting and salary as infructuous on the grounds that the interim order had been vacated.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition as infructuous was incorrect. Since the employee was deprived of the post and salary based on an interim order, the court should have directed the restoration of the post and payment of salary upon the vacation of said order.
Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking posting and salary becomes infructuous simply because the interim order that caused the deprivation of the post has been vacated.
Ratio Decidendi: When a person is deprived of a post and salary due to an interim order of the court, the subsequent vacation of that order does not automatically resolve the grievance; the court must actively direct the restoration of the post and payment of arrears for the period of deprivation.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Facts of the case:
An employee was promoted to a specific cadre and posted to a particular location. Another employee challenged the transfer and obtained an interim order staying the first employee's posting. Consequently, the first employee was deprived of the post and salary. Later, the High Court dismissed the challenge by the second employee and vacated the interim order. However, the High Court dismissed the first employee's petition for posting and salary as infructuous on the grounds that the interim order had been vacated.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition as infructuous was incorrect. Since the employee was deprived of the post and salary based on an interim order, the court should have directed the restoration of the post and payment of salary upon the vacation of said order.
Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking posting and salary becomes infructuous simply because the interim order that caused the deprivation of the post has been vacated.
Ratio Decidendi: When a person is deprived of a post and salary due to an interim order of the court, the subsequent vacation of that order does not automatically resolve the grievance; the court must actively direct the restoration of the post and payment of arrears for the period of deprivation.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a writ petition seeking posting and salary becomes infructuous upon the vacation of an interim order that had caused the deprivation of the post. (Para 2 )
3. High Court erred in dismissing the petition as infructuous; vacation of an interim order causing deprivation of post requires directions for posting and salary. (Para 3 )
4. A petition seeking relief from deprivation of post caused by an interim order does not become infructuous simply because the interim order is vacated. (Para 3 )
5. Appeals allowed — Direction for suitable posting in the cadre and payment of arrears of salary. (Para 4 )
6. Does a writ petition for posting and salary become infructuous if the interim order that caused the deprivation of the post is vacated?
No. If an employee was deprived of their post and salary based on an interim order, the court must provide appropriate directions regarding posting and salary once that interim order is vacated or the challenging petition is dismissed. (Para 3 )
7. What is the court's obligation when an interim order causing deprivation of employment is vacated?
The court should provide specific directions for the restoration of the employee's posting and the payment of salary for the period they were deprived of the post. (Para 3 , 4 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) PARAMJEET Singh, appellant herein, was originally working as Assistant Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. By order dated 22/7/1997 he was promoted as Executive Engineer in the Hill Cadre on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. By order dated 19-8-1997 he was posted as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation at Nainital. He took charge of the said post on 21/8/1997. Pradeep K. Srivastava, Respondent 4 who was posted as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation at Nainital was transferred from Nainital and was attached to the Superintending Engineer, Pauri. Respondent 4 filed a writ petition (WP No. 28125 of 1997 in the Allahabad High court wherein he challenged the order for his transfer. In the said writ petition by an interim order passed on 2/9/1997, the operation of the order dated 19-8-1997 relating to the posting of the appellant was stayed. As a result of the said interim order passed by the High court, the appellant was deprived of the post of Executive Engineer at Nainital by order of the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, dated 11/9/1997 and he was neither given any other posting nor was he paid any salary after he was deprived of the post of Executive Engineer at Nainital on 11/9/1997. The appellant filed a writ petition (WP No. 35616 of 1997 in the Allahabad High court wherein he prayed for quashing of the order of the Commissioner dated 11/9/1997 and for being posted as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Nainital in any other workable post of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation in the Hill Cadre and for payment of salary and allowances since August 1997. The writ petition filed by Respondent 4 and the appellant were disposed of by the High court by orders dated 19-1-1998. The writ petition filed by Respondent 4 was dismissed by the High court on the view that since he did not belong to the Hill Cadre his attachment to the office of Superintending Engineer, Pauri was totally vitiated and it was directed that he be posted on regular line anywhere in the plains. But at the same time it was directed that interim order granted earlier shall lapse after ten weeks, After passing the said order on the writ petition of Respondent 4, the High court passed the order on the writ petition of the appellant and dismissed the said writ petition as infructuous on the view that since the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 28125 of 1997 filed by Respondent 4 has been vacated, the writ petition filed by the appellant had lost its efficacy.
(3) WE are unable to appreciate the order passed by the High court on the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was deprived of the post of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, on the basis of the interim order dated 2/9/1997 passed by the High court in the writ petition filed by Respondent 4. After dismissing the writ petition of Respondent 4 it was necessary for the High court to have given appropriate directions in the writ petition of the appellant with regard to his posting as well as for payment of his salary. The writ petition could not be dismissed as infructuous.
(4) THE appeals are, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the appellant be given suitable posting as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, in the Hill Cadre and till he is given such posting he should be paid the salary for the period he has not been paid the salary on account of his being deprived of the post of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Nainital on 11/9/1997. The said amount of salary should be paid within one month. No order as to costs.
