SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 287

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU
Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Others - Appellant
Versus
P. Satyanarayana Rao & Others - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1065 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1143 of 2008)
Date of Judgment : 16-02-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents:P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Advocate, Shekhar G. Devasa and Dinesh Kumar Garg, Advocates.

Headnote:Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Case for regularisation of service – Division Bench granting stay on payment of arrears of salary etc. till disposal of appeal but not granting stay of order of regularisation – Non-interference with order of regularisation will render the appeal against regularisation infructuous – Refusal to stay against regularisation set aside till disposal of appeal. (Para 4)

Judgment :-

1. Leave granted.

2. It is true that this appeal has been preferred against an order by which the appellants were not granted interim order during the pendency of the appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order in depth and in detail.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the prayer for grant of stay of operation of the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by which regularization of the services of the workmen was passed, if not stayed, the entire appeal would become infructuous. Be it mentioned herein, that the Division Bench of the High Court, however, granted stay of payment of arrears till the disposal of the appeal. That being the position, we grant the stay against the regularization of the services of the workmen till the disposal of the appeal as well. Accordingly, the refusal to stay against regularisation of the services of the workmen stands set aside and interim order is granted in the manner indicated till the disposal of the appeal.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

6. The High Court is now requested to dispose of the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge, if not already disposed of in the meantime, within a period of three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order positively without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. We make it clear that we have not gone into the disputes raised by the parties in the writ application, which shall be decided by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top