HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.A. No. 1919 of 2013 DATE: 20.01.2014 Between:
V. Suryanath Reddy .. Appellant And Union of India and three others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2013 in W.P.M.P.No. 42513 of 2013 in W.P.No.
34162 of 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant interim relief as prayed for.
The learned counsel for the appellant – writ petitioner has submitted that Rule 26 of Service Rules viz. Hindustan Cables Limited (Conditions of Service, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules) (for brevity “C.D.A. Rules”) has been amended raising the retirement age of an employee to 60 years from 58 years, however the respondents allowed the petitioner to retire from service on 30.11.2013. He has contended that when the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No. 34162 of 2013, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 28.11.2013, refused to grant him interim relief notwithstanding the fact that the same learned Single Judge granted interim stay in case of one A.Panasaramanna, a similarly situated employee. While complaining about the exercise of judicial discretion by Courts, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Vishnu Traders v State of Haryana and Others
[1]
. He further submits that the respondent – Hindustan Cables Limited had not even filed counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition in W.P.No. 28394 of 2013 wherein A. Panasaramanna is the writ petitioner.
On the contrary, Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, submits that there as many as sixteen writ petitions which have been filed by different individuals seeking similar relief and raising same contentions with regard to the age of retirement, and excepting the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 28394 of 2013, in all other cases, this Court refused to grant interim relief. He further submits that in W.P.No. 28394 of 2013 ex parte interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge as the papers seem to have been served on Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, who in fact no longer represents the 3rd respondent therein.
Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference at this stage because whether the appellant is entitled to continue in service for another two years is a matter which needs to be decided on merits inasmuch as it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 that by virtue of further amendment to Rule-26 of the C.D.A. Rules effected in May, 2001, the retirement of officers has been rolled back to 58 years in supercession of the earlier amendment which was made in May, 1998 fixing the age of superannuation as 60 years. The learned Single Judge while refusing to grant interim relief also recorded that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner since he can be monetarily compensated in the event of his succeeding in the writ petition. We do not see any reason to find fault with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Further, it is well settled that the Supreme Court in the above cited judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant held that principle of binding precedents would not apply in case of interlocutory orders. Apart from that inasmuch as the main merits of the case have to be decided in the writ petition particularly the amendment of Rule 26 either for increasing the age of superannuation to 60 years or for subsequently reducing the same to 58 years, we are not inclined to admit the writ appeal.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
G. CHANDRAIAH, J 20.01.2014
bcj
RAM,J CHALLA KODANDA
[1] 1995 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 461