Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
Heard Sri I.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned Standing Counsel.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the Appeal at the admission stage itself.
The question with regard to retrospective effect of Government Order dated 24th July 2012 is pending adjudication before learned Single Judge, whereby Clause-3 of the said Government Order, has been impugned. In view of Clause-3 of the Government Order, the State Government has given effect to Government Order with regard to age of superannuation with prospective effect.
According to appellants' learned counsel, attention of learned Single Judge was invited to the fact that a bunch of writ petitions are pending whereby Clause-3 of the said Government Order has been impugned.
A perusal of order dated 25th July 2014 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3743 (S/S) of 2014 reveals that the learned Single Judge has declined to apply Government Order dated 24th July, 2014 relying upon Clause-3, which provides that the age of superannuation has been increased to 60 years prospectively. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
So far as the dismissal of the Writ Petition on merits is concerned, it seems to be based on sound principle of law on the ground that the State Government had applied the Government Order with prospective effect with regard to enhancement of age of superannuation. However, the fact remains that the Government Order dated 24th July 2014 has been impugned in a number of Writ Petitions, which are pending adjudication in this Court. This fact is apparent from order dated 22nd July, 2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3614 (S./S) of 2014: Ram Pal & ors vs. State of U.P. & ors., a copy of which was filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition preferred by the appellants before the learned Single Judge.
A perusal of the reliefs claimed by the appellants in the Writ Petition preferred before the learned Single Judge reveals that the appellants have also challenged Clause-3 of the Government Order dated 24th July 2012. For convenience, the reliefs claimed by the appellants in the Writ Petition are reproduced as under:
"a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the retirement orders dated 30.06.2012 and 30.12.2011 issued by the opposite parties as well as quash the implementation of letter dated 16.04.2012 (with respect to the petitioners only) written by opposite party no.1 to opposite party no.2 that the retirement age of the corporation need not be enhanced.
b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the clause 3 of the order dated 24.7.2012 where in it is provided that this order will be effective with immediate effect and the last para of the order 26.7.2012 where in it is provided that this order will be effective with immediate effect, with respect to the petitioners only.
c. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the opposite parties to allow/treat the petitioners to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. till 30.06.2014 and to pay him salary each and every month when it falls due and also give all the consequential benefits to the petitioners.
d. issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.
e. Allow the writ petition of the petitioners with cost. "
On the face of the record, not only the petitioners claimed extension of retirement date, but also prayed for quashment of Clause-3 of Government Order dated 24th July, 2012, which is subject matter of dispute in bunch of pending Writ Petitions in this Court. Dismissal of the Writ Petition at this stage, when admittedly a bunch of Writ Petitions wherein identical Clause-3 has been impugned is pending, seems to be unjustified, that too without recording any finding with regard to the validity of Clause-3 of aforesaid Government Order. We are also informed that a number of bunch writ petitions were allowed by this Court. Copy of one such judgment was also placed on record before the learned Single Judge as Annexure-13 to the Writ Petition.
It is well settled proposition of law that at the admission stage, while dealing with subject matter, the Court should not single out the petitioner in case other bunch of Writ Petitions is pending with regard to adjudication of the same controversy, that too, without recording a finding on merit in terms of relief claimed by the litigant. It is always appropriate for the Court to proceed in terms of reliefs and pleadings on record, and if, prima facie, case is made out, and the facts and circumstances require, then the respondent(s) may be called upon to file their counter affidavit containing parawise reply to the writ petition so that the controversy involved may be adjudicated on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.
In this regard, we may aptly reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Traders vs. State of Haryana and Ors. Reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 461 wherein it was observed:
"In the matters of interlocutory orders, principle of binding precedents cannot be said to apply. However, the need for consistency of approach and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar causes and the desirability to eliminate occasions for grievances of discriminatory treatment requires that all similar matters should receive similar treatment except where factual differences require a different treatment so that there is assurance of consistency, uniformity, predictability and certainty of judicial approach."
Admittedly, a bunch of Writ Petitions is pending wherein validity of Clause-3 of the impugned Government Order dated 24th July, 2012 has been challenged. In the instant case also, the petitioners-appellants have challenged validity of Clause-3 of the Government Order. In any case, dismissal of Writ Petition at this stage, without adjudicating the controversy involved, and without recording a finding in terms of reliefs claimed, seem to be unjustified.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Impugned Judgment and order dated 25th July, 2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3743 (S/S) of 2014 is set aside. The Writ Petition is restored to its original number and shall be listed before the appropriate Bench in the third week of September, 2014 along with other similar bunch of Writ Petitions. Officer-on-Special Duty (Classification) shall find out and inform the Joint Registrar (Listing) of this Bench with regard to all pending identical matters so that the petitions may be listed and decided simultaneously on merits. Learned Chief Standing Counsel of this Bench shall also provide list of all such identical cases to the Joint Registrar (Listing). In the meantime, learned counsel for the respondents shall file counter affidavit to the present Writ Petition No.3743 (S/S) of 2014 as well as other Writ Petitions.
No order as to costs.