Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1376
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra, JJ.
Union of India and another - Appellants
Versus
K. Ganesan (Dead) By Lr. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6048 of 2010 With Civil Appeal No. 6371 of 2010
Decided On : 01-09-2016
For the Appellants in CA No. 6048 of 2010 and for Respondents in connected cases:P.S. Patwalia, ASG, K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advs., Tushar Bakshi, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Arijit Prasad (For B. Krishna Prasad), Advocates.
For the Appellants in CA No. 6371 of 2010 and for Respondent in CA No. 6048 of 2010:Dr. K.B. Sounder Rajan, Ms. Shriya Raj Chauhan (For Mr. Sudarshan Rajan), Advocates.
For the Petitioner in WP No. 1028 of 2013:- Saransh Jain, Priyadarshi Banerjee, Naresh Kumar (for E.C. Agrawala), Advocates.
For the Respondent (Applicants in IA No. 2 and 4 in CA No. 6048 of 2010):M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv., K. V. Mohan, K.V. Balakrishnan, Sumit Attri, Ms. Shipra Ghose, Advocates.
Courts emphasize the need to avail remedies before the competent court and may decline impleadment if the remedy has not been sought.
Headnote:
Interlocutory Applications - Impleadment - Restoration of Pension
Fact of the Case:
The court dismissed the appeal against the restoration of 2/3rd pension for the respondent after the expiry of the commutation period. The court also declined the prayer for impleadment of other applicants and directed them to seek an alternate remedy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no justification to interfere with the restoration of pension and declined the prayer for impleadment, granting liberty to seek an alternate remedy.
Issues: Restoration of pension, Impleadment of other applicants
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the restoration of pension for the respondent and declined the prayer for impleadment, emphasizing the need for availing remedies before the competent court.
Final Decision: The appeal against restoration of pension was dismissed, and the prayer for impleadment was declined, with liberty granted to seek an alternate remedy.
ORDER :
Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, and having perused the record of the case, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order, directing restoration of 2/3rd pension in respect of the respondent herein, after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation.
2. The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
IA Nos. 2/2008, 3/2009, 4/2010 & IA 5/2013 in CA No.6048/2010
3. We find no justification in entertaining the instant interlocutory applications on behalf of persons who had not availed of their remedy before the competent Court. It would be inappropriate for us to examine the veracity of their claims, in the first instance.
4. We accordingly decline the prayer for impleadment, and while doing so, grant liberty to the applicants to seek an appropriate alternate remedy, as may be available to them, in accordance with law.
5. The applications for impleadment are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Civil Appeal No. 6371 of 2010
6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
7. In view of dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 6048 of 2010 by us today (Union of India and another v. K. Ganesan (Dead) By Lr.), this appeal has to be accepted.
8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. It is directed that the appellants shall be entitled for restoration of their 2/3rd pension, after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation.
