2010 Supreme(SC) 1174

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. M. Panchal,Deepak Verma and B. S. Chauhan, JJ.
State of U.P. and Ors.
Versus.
Hirendra Pal Singh etc.
Civil Appeal No. ... of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14992 to 93 of 2010)
Decided On: 03.12.2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
No reason why State cannot fix age of working of the District Government Advocates.
On repeal, the earlier provisions stand obliterated/abrogated/wiped out wholly.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Conditions of service – In Government service governed by statutory rules, State is competent to make changes in conditions of service like reducing the age of retirement, unilaterally – No reason why State cannot fix age of working of the District Government Advocates. (Para 11)

       AIR 1965 SC 1567; AIR 1967 SC 1889; AIR 1969 SC 118; AIR 1974 SC 1; AIR 1981 SC 561; AIR 1999 SC 2012; AIR 1985 SC 551; AIR 1994 SC 1474 – Relied upon

       (b) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – Court should not generally stay the operation of law. (Para 12)

       AIR 2000 SC 2047 – Relied upon

       (c) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – Practice of passing interim orders – Without restraint – May affect consistency of judgment – Court has to delicately balance the private and public interest – Court should ensure that identical matters are given identical treatment – Even though principle of binding precedent does not apply to interim orders, consistency needs to be maintained. (Para 13, 14, 15)

       AIR 1984 SC 653; AIR 1987 SC 1345; (1982) 2 SCC 40; (1995) Supp.(1) SCC 461 – Relied upon

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Respondent working on the strength of interim order on his first writ petition – Yet High Court entertaining his second writ petition without deciding the first one – Not permissible. (Para 16)

       (e) Interpretation of statute – Repeal – Provision repealed is normally considered as if it never existed – On repeal, the earlier provisions stand obliterated/abrogated/wiped out wholly – High Court directing State to follow repealed provision – Repeal and stay of operation – Repeal and amendment – Amended provision under challenge – Repealed provisions non-existent – High Court could declare amended provision ultra vires and strike down the same – But that may not automatically revive the repealed provisions –

       High Court issuing directions to State authorities to proceed, as an interim measure, under a non-existing law – Not permissible. (Para 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)

       AIR 1991 SC 537; AIR 1993 SC 2436; AIR 1996 SC 864; AIR 2004 SC 3800; AIR 2004 SC 3513; AIR 1992 SC 990; AIR 1997 SC 412; AIR 2001 SC 1668; AIR 2007 SC 232; AIR 1992 SC 1439; AIR 1988 SC 740; AIR 1965 SC 1430; AIR 1986 SC 515; AIR 2002 SC 948; (2004) 8 SCC 1; (2009) 8 SCC 46; AIR 1955 SC 352; AIR 1975 SC 155; AIR 1963 SC 928 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent No. 1 in first case was appointed as a District Government Counsel (Revenue-1), Agra vide order dated 30.11.1988 for a fixed tenure. His term was renewed from time to time upto 31.12.1992. The proposal for renewal of his tenure was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Agra in 1993 and 1996. Ultimately, the State Government passed an order dated 2.12.1998 dispensing with the services of the said Respondent. Being aggrieved, he preferred Writ Petition wherein the interim order was passed that the said Respondent would be allowed to continue till further orders of the court. Thus, he continued to work under the said interim order till 2008, when the provisions of L.R. Manual were amended with effect from 13.8.2008, reducing the age of District Government Counsel from 62 to 60 years. As he had already completed age of 60 years, thus was disengaged, whereby Respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 11170(M/B) of 2009 praying therein to be permitted to continue upto 62 years. The High Court passed an interim order dated 30.11.2009 directing the State Authorities to consider his application for extension of service upto 62 years under the unamended provisions of the L.R. Manual.

       Similarly, another order has been passed in Writ Petition No. 7851 (M/B) of 2008 filed by the Association of District Government Counsel in representative capacity challenging the amendment dated 13.8.2008 to the L.R. Manual to the effect of dispensation of consultation by the District Magistrate with the District Judge, while making proposal to the State Government for appointment of such counsel, reducing the age of service from 62 years to 60 years. The High Court has stayed the operation of the amended provisions, and issued direction to consider applications for the Distt. Government Counsel for renewal in accordance with the unamended provisions of the L.R. Manual, till further orders.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result:

       Appeals disposed of.