1. Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondents
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an order dated 17.5.2021 (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition) whereby the respondents have proceeded to cancel the earlier order dated 23.11.2019 and revive the order dated 31.7.2019.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been given reduction of pay scale after holding an inquiry vide order order dated 31.07.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 24149 (SS) of 2019, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 27.09.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-17 to the writ petition. While allowed the petition, this Court had considered an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Jag Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.34227 (SS) of 2018. Subsequently, the respondents proceeded to pass an order dated 23.11.2019 whereby they cancelled the dismissal order dated 31.07.2019.
4. In the meanwhile, the case of Jag Pal Singh (supra) reached the Apex Court on an SLP filed by the department itself and the Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-19 to the writ petition, set aside the judgment of Jag Pal Singh (supra). Now through the impugned order dated 17.05.2021, the respondents have proceeded to (a) cancel the earlier order dated 23.11.2019, and (b) revived the order dated 31.07.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the order dated 31.07.2019 had been quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 27149 (SS) of 2019 and the said judgment attained finality as no special appeal had been filed against the said judgment consequently the said judgment would be final inter-se the parties and merely because now in the case of Jag Pal Singh (supra) the Supreme Court has dismissed the writ petition before the High Court the same would not give a license to the respondents to reopen those proceedings which already stand culminated with the quashing of the reduction of pay scale order. It is also contended that once the respondents themselves had cancelled the order dated 31.07.2019 vide order dated 23.11.2019 as such they cannot now revive the said order. However, it would always be open for them to pass a fresh order in terms of the liberty that had been granted by the writ Court while placing reliance on the judgment of Jag Pal Singh (supra).
6. On the other hand, Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for respondents contends that once the writ Court had placed reliance over the judgment of Jag Pal Singh (supra) and the said judgment has been set-aside by the Apex Court and the writ petition itself before this Court has been dismissed as such respondents are always at liberty to unsettle the things in terms of the judgment of Jag Pal Singh (supra).
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. In regard to submission advanced by Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and order passed in regard to case of the petitioner has attained finality in the eyes of law, appears to have substance. The judgment dated 27.09.2019 was not challenged by the respondents by filing special appeal or by approaching the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the judgment between the parties became final and in compliance of the judgment, the respondent also passed an order on 23.11.2020 whereby the petitioner was given pay scale which he was drawing earlier. Merely on the basis that the judgment relied upon of the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) was subsequently set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that does not give right to the respondents to pass the impugned order by reviving the earlier order dated 31.07.2019.
9. In the opinion of the Court, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order cannot be termed to be valid one, therefore the order is not sustainable in law. The only submission of Shri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State is that once the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned order is just and valid. In the opinion of this Court, till the judgment in the case of the petitioner is not set aside taking into consideration the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) has been quashed/ set aside, the impugned order passed by the respondents cannot be sustained.
10. In view of the above reasons, the order impugned dated 17.5.2021 is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.
11. However, it would be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Pachhere/-