1. Appeal against High Court interim order directing reinstatement of respondents during pendency of proceedings. (Para 5 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 538
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI & ORS. ETC. ETC. - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
AFSHAN KHAN AND ORS ETC. ETC. - RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal Nos. 5819-5822 of 2017 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 12616-12619 of 2017]
Decided On : 01-05-2017
Important Points
The court's decision emphasized the limitations on granting interim orders for reinstatement during the pendency of appeals.
Subject
Civil Law - Employment Law
Headnote
Interim Order - Reinstatement - The court disposed of the appeals at the admission stage, stating that the High Court could not have granted an interim order for reinstatement of the respondents during the pendency of the appeals. The High Court was requested to dispose of the writ petition and connected matters expeditiously, and until then, the respondents were not to be taken back for work.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were aggrieved by the interim order passed by the High Court, which directed the reinstatement of the respondents during the pendency of the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court could not have granted the interim order for reinstatement and disposed of the appeals at the admission stage.
Issues: The issue was whether the High Court's interim order for reinstatement of the respondents was appropriate during the pendency of the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the High Court could not have granted the interim order for reinstatement and requested the High Court to dispose of the writ petition and connected matters expeditiously.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of, with the High Court being requested to dispose of the writ petition and connected matters expeditiously, and until then, the respondents were not to be taken back for work.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. High Court could not have granted interim order for reinstatement considering the background of the case and previous judicial orders. (Para 6 )
3. Interim reinstatement is impermissible if it contradicts the factual background and prior judicial directions in the matter. (Para 6 )
4. High Court directed to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously; respondents are not to be reinstated pending final order. (Para 7 )
5. Whether a High Court can grant interim reinstatement during the pendency of a writ petition?
The court held that an interim order for reinstatement cannot be granted if it is inconsistent with the background of the case and previous judicial orders. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT :
Kurian, J.
Issue notice.
2. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel, appears and waives notice for all the respondents on behalf of Ms. Rakhi Ray, Advocate-on-Record.
3. Leave granted.
4. With the consent of the learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, these appeals are disposed of at the admission stage.
5. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the interim order passed by the High Court in effect directs of reinstatement of the respondents during the pendency of these appeals.
6. In the background of the case including the order passed by this Court in C.A. No.4416 of 2016, we are of the view that the High Court could not have granted interim order for reinstatement.
7. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of as follows:-
i. We request the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur to dispose of Writ Petition No.19101 of 2016 and connected matters expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
ii. Till the order is passed by the High Court in the writ petition as above, the respondents are not to be taken back for work.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
9. There shall be no orders as to costs.
