Full Judgment Text
CA 9165-72/ 10
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9165-9172 OF 2010
Sunil Kumar Verma and Others Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10567 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.991 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2293 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3212 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7117 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7119 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7838 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7109 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8335 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8345 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8672 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8687 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9731 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10450 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10546 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10549 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10550 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10688 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.209 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2151 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2152 OF 2012
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2015.09.28
14:58:00 IST
Reason:
CA 9165-72/ 10
2
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2460 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6152 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6153 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6154 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6155 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6156 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6157 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6175 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6720 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6897 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7864 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7893 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7894 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7895 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7896 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7897 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8517 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8682 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8764 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.295 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.296 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.304 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.305 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.306 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.444 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.620 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1507 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5343 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6716 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5344 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10177-10179 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6398-6403 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7861-7863 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.311-313 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9142-9144 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7867 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.1833 OF 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7868 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.19001 OF 2013)
CA 9165-72/ 10
3
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) NO.1833 of 2013 and S.L.P.
(C) NO.19001 of 2013.
2. The U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited (for short,
th
'the Corporation') was wound up on 8 December, 1999. There
is no dispute about the fact that the said Corporation is an
instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution
of India. It is the admitted position that in the State of U.P.
existed a set of rules, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of
Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in
Government Service Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the 1991 Rules').
After the Corporation was wound up, Shailendra Kumar Pandey
and some others, who were the employees of the Corporation,
filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.36644 of 2003,
seeking absorption under the aforesaid Rules.
3. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition
referred to Rule 3(i) of the Rules that deals with the rights of
the retrenched employees. He referred to the dictionary clause
CA 9165-72/ 10
4
engrafted in Rule 2(c), which reads as follows:
“2(c) Retrenched employees means a person
who was appointed on the post under the
Government or a public corporation on or before
Oct., 1, 1986 in accordance with the procedure
laid down for recruitment to the post and was
continuously working in any post under the
Government or such Corporation up to the date
of his retrenchment. Due to reduction in, or
winding up of, any establishment of the
Government or the Corporation, as the case may
be and in respect of whom a certificate of being a
retrenched employee has been issued by this
appointing authority.”
After reproducing the said provision, the Writ Court
referred to the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition
No.17195 of 1998, and reproduced the relevant paragraphs
from the decision rendered therein and, thereafter, took note of
the fact that the said order had been affirmed in Special Appeal
No.540 of 1999, and further stood confirmed by this Court, for
the appeal preferred before this Court did not meet with
success. The learned Single Judge also referred to the order
passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 38534 of 2001
th
on 20 September, 2003, wherein a direction was issued to the
respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision. After the said
direction was issued, the Principal Secretary (Personnel),
Government of U.P., rejected the claims of the petitioners
CA 9165-72/ 10
5
therein on the foundation that the Personnel Department did
not have the authority to declare the employees as retrenched
employees and to take a decision for their absorption. The
learned Single Judge dealt with various contentions raised by
the learned counsel for the parties and also cogitated upon the
U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of the State
Government/Public Sector Corporation in Government Service
(Recession) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2003
Rules') and, eventually came to hold passed that the Absorption
th
Rules, 1991 were rescinded on 8 April, 2003 and much prior
to that the employees had represented and the respondents
were required to consider their rights for absorption within two
months and regard being had to the rule position, it could
safely be held that the rights of the employees had crystallized
much before the Rules were rescinded. After so holding, the
learned Single Judge proceeded to state thus:-
“The respondents cannot take the benefit of the
delay caused by them in considering petitioners
application. The two months period granted by
this Court on 20.09.2002 expired on 20.11.2002.
The delay made by the Secretary (Karmik)
Anubhag-2, Government of U.P. in deciding the
matter, cannot be a ground to refuse the due
consideration, required to be made by this Court
before the rescission of the Rules. The Rescission
CA 9165-72/ 10
6
of Rules will, therefore, not come in the way of
petitioners in claiming the absorption.
The writ petition, as such, allowed. The
impugned order dated 30.04.2003 passed by the
Special Secretary (Karmik) Anubhag-3, Govt. of
U.P., Lucknow (Annexure-10 to the writ petition)
is quashed. The respondents are directed to
absorb the petitioners in any vacancy on
Group-C post outside the purview of Public
Service Commission within a period of two
months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.”
4. The aforesaid order came to be assailed before a
Special Bench in Special Appeal No.618 of 2004. The Division
th
Bench referred to its order dated 14 October, 2004, passed in
State of U.P. through its Secretary and Another vs.
1
Mukund Lal Singh which had faced dismissal and
accordingly passed the following order:
“In view of the averments made in Ground
Nos.12 and 13 of the Special Appeal, the appeal
is bound to be dismissed as the decision of this
Court, in Writ Petition No.17195 of 1998 was
challenged not only before the Division Bench in
Special Appeal but was also before the Apex
Court and the judgment remained intact.
In view of the above, considering the
averments made in the affidavit filed in support
of the application under section 5 of the
Limitation Act condonation of delay, we condone
the delay in filing the appeal but dismiss the
Special Appeal on merit.
1 S.P.A. No.869 of 2004 decided on 14.10.2004
CA 9165-72/ 10
7
Mst. Kirtika Singh appears for the
respondent.
However, the judgment and the order of
the learned Single Judge shall be given effect to
strictly in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Uttar
Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of
Government or Public Corporations in
Government Service (Rescission) Rules, 2003.”
5. The said order came to be assailed in Civil Appeal
st
No.782 of 2006. This Court vide order dated 31 January,
2008, passed the following order:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we
are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
orders.
The civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
It is made clear that the directions in the order
th
dated 14 October, 2004, passed in Special
Appeal No.869 of 2004 that the order of the
learned Single Judge shall be given effect to
strictly in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Uttar
Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of
Government or Public Corporations in
Government Service Rules, 1991, shall apply in
all these appeals.
I.A. No.7 is permitted to be withdrawn to take
such remedy as is available to the applicant
under law. I.A. No.5 is permitted to be
withdrawn.”
It is apt to note here, thereafter, certain issues arose
CA 9165-72/ 10
8
before this Court in contempt petitions with regard to the grant
of salary component. We shall refer to the said facet at a later
stage.
6. When the matter stood thus, and in all possibility, all
the affected employees of the Corporation felt relieved,
inasmuch as the controversy had travelled to this Court and
was put to rest. The writ petitions which were preferred in the
year 2001 were still pending before the High Court and the
expectation of the petitioners therein was that the similar
benefits shall enure to them, for the writ petitions instituted on
later dates had been disposed. As is demonstrable, the
learned Single Judge following the judgment of the Special
Bench, as well as of this Court, allowed the writ petition.
7. On appeals being preferred by the State of U.P., the
Division Bench by the impugned judgment, rather a longish
one, adverted to many an aspect and posed the core question
which is as follows:-
“The question still remains as to what is the ratio
of Shailendra Kumar Pandey's case (supra),
which was decided by the learned Single Judge of
th
this Court vide its judgment and order dated 6
January, 2004 and affirmed in special appeal by
Division Bench of this Court and in civil appeal
by the Apex Court.”
CA 9165-72/ 10
9
8. The Division Bench after posing the question,
proceeded to state that:-
“As noticed above, the learned Single Judge in its
th
judgment dated 6 January, 2004, in Shailendra
Kumar Pandey's case (supra) noticed that the
th
1991 Rules were rescinded on 8 April, 2003,
but a view was taken that since the retrenched
employees fell within the category of the 1991
Rules and the respondents were required to
consider their rights for absorption within two
months under the order of this Court passed on
th
20 September, 2002, the respondents cannot
take the benefit of delay caused by them in
considering the claim of the writ petitioners. It
was also held that their rights crystallised much
before the rules were rescinded. The learned
Single Judge further held that two months period
th
expired on 20 November, 2002 and the delay
caused by Secretary (Karmik), Government of
U.P. cannot be a ground to refuse due
consideration required to be made by this Court
before rescission of the rules. The above
observation of the learned Single Judge makes it
clear that basis of the direction by the Court was
non compliance of the earlier directions dated
th
20 September, 2002 within the time allowed
and that was the reason for direction to the State
Government to consider the case of absorption.
The said directions of the learned Single Judge
th
dated 6 January, 2004, were issued on the
special facts of that case.
As noted above, the special appeal filed
th
against the judgment and order dated 6
January, 2004 was dismissed following earlier
decision of the Division Bench in Special Appeal
No. 869 of 2004. The order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal
CA 9165-72/ 10
10
No.869 of 2004 has also been quoted above by
which decision the special appeal was dismissed
with direction that the judgment of learned
Single Judge be given effect to strictly in
accordance with Rule 3 of the 1991 Rules. While
th
dismissing the special appeal on 14 October,
2004, the Division Bench had not adverted to the
consequence of the Rescission Rules, 2003. The
Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment having
not considered or expressed any opinion with
regard to the Rescission Rules, 2003, no such
ratio can be read in the aforesaid judgment that
despite Rescission Rules 2003 the right of
retrenched employees, who could not be
th
absorbed till 8 April, 2003, still subsists and
can be enforced by a writ petition.”
9. Thereafter, the Division Bench referred to the
authority in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill
2
(P) Ltd. and Others and Delhi Administration (Now NCT of
3
Delhi) vs. Manohar La l which deal with binding nature of a
judgment and thereafter, it referred to the decision in Special
th
Appeal No.233 of 2007 decided on 15 March, 2007, wherein
the 1991 Rules and 2003 Rules were considered and opined
thus:-
“A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal
No.233 of 2007 ( Subhash Prasad vs. State of U.P.
and Others , decided on 15.3.2007) had
considered the similar issues pertaining to right
under the 1991 Rules and the effect of the
Rescission Rules 2003. The appellant in the
aforesaid case had filed a writ petition for a
2 (2003) 2 SCC 111
3 (2002) 7 SCC 222
CA 9165-72/ 10
11
direction for absorption under the 1991 Rules.
The writ petition was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge against which special appeal was
filed. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said
judgment the Division Bench noted Rule 3(1) of
the Rescission Rules 2003. The argument of the
learned counsel for the State that after the
Rescission Rules 2003 came into force the right
under the 1991 Rules came to an end was also
noticed. The Division Bench held that at the
highest the applicant has to be considered like
any other employee but the said right came to an
end when the rules were rescinded in 2003.”
10. The Division Bench expressed the view that decision
in Subhash Prasad (supra) was squarely applicable and
governed the field. It also referred to the decision in W.P.
No.51252 of 2006 [ Prabhu vs. State of U.P. and Others ],
wherein the learned Single Judge had opined that merely
because some incumbents had been offered appointment under
the cover of the orders passed by the Court, it will not improve
the case of the petitioners therein as two wrongs would not
make a thing right. Endorsing the said view, the Division
Bench proceeded to state that:-
“.......We having found that the right of
consideration for absorption under the 1991
Rules having come to an end after the Rescission
Rules 2003, no mandamus can be issued for
enforcing the said right. However, it is relevant
to note that under the Rescission Rules 2003 as
CA 9165-72/ 10
12
well as under the 2009 Act certain benefits have
been provided to the retrenched employees even
th
after 8 April, 2003. The retrenched employees,
i.e. writ petitioners are fully entitled to take the
benefit of the aforesaid Rule 3(ii) of the
Rescission Rules 2003 and Section 3(2) of the
2009 Act.
The appeals filed by the retrenched
employees challenging the order of the learned
Single Judge in Prabhu Nath Prasad's case
deserves to be and are hereby dismissed in view
of the foregoing discussions. Thus all the
appeals of Group-I, Group-III and Group-IV are
partly allowed setting aside the directions issued
by the learned Single Judge for absorbing the
writ petitioners. However, it is directed that
retrenched employees of U.P. Cement
Corporation, Bhadohi Woollen Mills and U.P.
State Sugar Corporation shall be entitled for the
benefits as contemplated under Rule 3(ii) of the
Rescission Rules 2003 and saved under Section
3(2) of the 2009 Act on Group 'C' and Group 'D'
posts.”
11. We have heard Mr. Amarendra Sharan and Mr. Manoj
Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sunil
Kumar Verma, the appellant in-person in Civil Appeal No.9165
of 2010 and Ms. Reena Singh, learned Additional Advocate
General for the State of U.P.
12. We have already adumbrated the facts in extenso to
understand the nature of controversy. It is evident from the
narration of the factual score that Mukund Lal Singh, who had
CA 9165-72/ 10
13
approached the High Court in 2004, did not stand on a better
footing than the present appellants herein. The learned Single
Judge had treated him as a retrenched employee on similar
facts. The Special Bench had declined to interfere and this
Court, while dismissing the civil appeals, as the order would
clearly show, had directed to give effect to the order passed in
Special Appeal No.869 of 2004, strictly in accordance with Rule
3(1) of the 1991 Rules and it was eloquently stated that the
Rule would apply to the batch of appeals. Needless to
emphasise, the writ petition preferred by the present appellants
should have been listed along with the writ petition preferred by
Mukund Lal Singh and Shaiendra Kumar Pandey, but,
unfortunately, it did not so happen.
13. Be it stated, there had already been interpretation of
2003 Rules by the learned Single Judge which has been
affirmed up to this Court. In such a situation, we really fail to
fathom how the Division Bench could have thought of entering
into the analysis of the ratio of the earlier judgment and
discussion on binding precedents. That apart, the Division
Bench should have also kept itself alive to the direction issued
by this Court in the civil appeals.
CA 9165-72/ 10
14
14. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note
what followed thereafter. After the directions were issued by
this Court, Contempt Petition No.255 of 2008 in Civil Appeal
No.782 of 2006 and certain other contempt petitions were filed.
This Court issued directions from time to time as the employees
were not absorbed. Thereafter, they were absorbed and this
Court directed for payment of salary component and certain
other consequential benefits from the date of retrenchment.
This Court referred to the order passed by the State
Government and reproduced the same. It is extracted
hereunder:-
“Hon'ble Governor has been pleased to accord its
sanction to extend following facilities/benefits to
the petitioners of Contempt Petition
No.255/2008-Mukund Lal Singh versus Atul
Kumar Gupta, Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh; Contempt Petition No.256/2008-
Shailendra Kumar Pandey and others versus
Kunwar Fateh Bahadur Singh and others; and
Contempt Petition No.15/2009 (Civil Appeal
No.782/2006) – Mohd. Shakiluddin and others
versus Shri Atul Kumar Gupta and others and
other connected Civil Appeals pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as those
petitioners who are covered by the Judgment and
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
31.1.2008 and in furtherance to government
order No.3504/77-1-2009/13(Cement)/2004
dated 3.12.2009.
CA 9165-72/ 10
15
1) All the petitioners of the aforesaid
Contempt Petitions and all others who are
covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dated 31.1.2008, will be deemed to have
been absorbed in the government service with
effect from the date of their retrenchment by the
Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation Limited.
2) If it is not possible to absorb Petitioners of
the aforesaid Contempt Petitions and all others
who are covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 31.1.2008, on the posts on
which they were working in the Uttar Pradesh
Cement Corporation Limited on the date of their
retrenchment, then they be protected in the pay
scale for the post on which they are being
absorbed, in such a manner that their salaries
are closest to the salaries which they were
withdrawn on the date of their retrenchments
from the Corporation. It was further decided in
the meeting that if the last salary drawn by them
was higher than the salary being given to them
after their absorption in the government service,
then such a different be considered as personal
pay and such personal pay be given to them from
the date of their retrenchment. But before doing
so, an undertaking must be obtained from the
concerned personnel that he has not already
received any other benefits, salary, retrenchment
compensation etc. from the Official Liquidator,
for the period after their retrenchment from
parent department. If any personnel has already
availed any benefit from the official liquidator for
the period after his retrenchment, then same will
be adjusted from the arrears of the said
personnel. Affidavit of undertaking given by the
personnel should also be got verified from the
official liquidator.
3) Besides above, these personnel will also be
entitled to added increment and arrears with
CA 9165-72/ 10
16
effect from the date of their retrenchment.
4) These benefits are being extended to all the
Petitioners of the aforesaid Contempt Petitions
and all others who are covered by the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme court dated 31.1.2008, in
accordance with the directions given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, these benefits
would not have been available to them in normal
course. It is also pertinent to mention here that
no other personnel will be entitled to such
benefits in future.
5) Services rendered by these personnel in
U.P. Cement Corporation Ltd., i.e., before their
absorption in government service, will not be
considered for the purpose of their pensionary
benefits.”
15. After reproducing the said order, this Court noted that
as the order had been substantially complied with the direction
given by the High Court and the order passed by this Court,
there is no valid reason to continue with the contempt
proceedings. Additionally, this Court added, which we may
profitably reproduce:-
“If the petitioners are not satisfied with the
fixation of their pay etc., they may make
representation(s) to the competent authority.
Such representation shall be disposed of by the
concerned authority within next two months by
passing speaking order. If the petitioners are not
satisfied with the order passed on their
representation(s), then they shall be free to avail
appropriate legal remedy.”
CA 9165-72/ 10
17
16. In the obtaining factual matrix, we are disposed to
think that it was absolutely inappropriate on the part of the
High Court to go in search of ratio of the judgment rendered by
the Single Judge on the earlier occasion, when the controversy
had really been put to rest by this court. The Division Bench,
we are disposed to think, should not have entered the arena
which was absolutely unwarranted. The decision rendered by
this Court inter se parties was required to be followed in the
same fact situation. When the factual matrix was absolutely
luminescent and did not require any kind of surgical dissection,
there was no necessity to take a different view. Needless to say,
this kind of situation procrastinate the litigations and the
litigants, as has been stated, though in a different context in
4
Koppisetty Venkat Ratnam v. Pamarti Venkayamma is
extremely expensive and time consuming.
17. In this regard, a few lines from Sundarjas Kanyalal
5
Bhatija v. Collector is worth reproducing:-
“… One must remember that pursuit of the law,
however glamorous it is, has its own limitation on
the Bench. In a multi-Judge court, the Judges
are bound by precedents and procedure. They
4 (2009) 4 SCC 244
5 (1989) 3 SCC 396
CA 9165-72/ 10
18
could use their discretion only when there is no
declared principle to be found, no rule and no
authority.”
We have highlighted this aspect as we intend to ingeminate
that this kind of unnecessary enthusiastic quest should be
avoided. It is because it is contrary to the principles of judicial
discipline. In this regard reference to Official Liquidator v.
6
Dayanand and others would be apt. In the said ruling, it has
been observed thus:-
“There have been several instances of different
Benches of the High Courts not following the
judgments/orders of coordinate and even larger
Benches. In some cases, the High Courts have
gone to the extent of ignoring the law laid down
by this Court without any tangible reason. Like-
wise, there have been instances in which smaller
Benches of this Court have either ignored or by-
passed the ratio of the judgments of the larger
Benches including the Constitution Benches.
These cases are illustrative of non-adherence to
the rule of judicial discipline which is sine qua
non for sustaining the system.”
18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no reason
that the appellants herein should not reap the benefits of
absorption and, accordingly, it is directed that they shall be
absorbed by the State Government as per their seniority and be
6 (2008) 10 SCC 1
CA 9165-72/ 10
19
given the benefit of increments, within eight weeks hence.
Needless to say, they will be entitled to their seniority as per the
prevalent rules. If anyone has been retired from service, he
shall get the retiral benefits inclusive of pension.
19. At this juncture, the question arises as to what
amount should be paid towards back wages. In this context,
our attention has been invited to the order passed by this Court
in contempt proceeding. However, after some debate, learned
counsel for the appellants left it to the discretion of this Court.
Ms. Reena Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the
State vehemently opposed with regard to grant of any back
wages. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on this
score and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of
the case, we think that the cause of justice would be best
sub-served if each of the appellant is paid 40% of the back
wages, and it is so directed. It shall be computed as per our
directions issued hereinbefore within a period of twelve weeks
hence and be paid to the appellants.
21. The aforesaid appeals which relate to U.P. State
Cement Corporation Limited are allowed accordingly. There
CA 9165-72/ 10
20
shall be no order as to costs.
......................J.
[Dipak Misra]
......................J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi
September 09, 2015.
CA 9165-72/ 10
21
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos.9165-9172/2010
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND ORS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH C.A. No. 10177-10179/2010
C.A. No. 10567/2010
W.P.(C) No. 541/2011
With Office Report)
C.A. No. 716-717/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 991/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 2293/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 3212/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 7109/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 7117/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 7119/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 7838/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 7880-7882/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 8335/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 8345/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 8672/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 8687/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 9731/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 10450/2011
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 10546/2011
(With Office Report)
CA 9165-72/ 10
22
C.A. No. 10549/2011
(With Office Report for Direction)
C.A. No. 10550/2011
(With Office Report for Direction)
C.A. No. 10688/2011
(With Office Report for Direction)
W.P.(C) No. 129/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 201/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 208/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 209/2012
(With Office Report)
W.P.(C) No. 372/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 2151/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 2152/2012
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)
C.A. No. 2460/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 6152/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 6153/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 6154/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 6155/2012
(With Office Report for Direction)
C.A. No. 6156/2012
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and appln.(s) for impleadment and
Office Report for Direction)
C.A. No. 6157/2012
(With Office Report for Direction)
C.A. No. 6175/2012
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 6398-6403/2012
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 6720/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 6897/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 7861-7863/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 7864/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 7893/2012
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 7894/2012
CA 9165-72/ 10
23
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 7895/2012
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 7896/2012
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 7897/2012
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 8517/2012
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 8682/2012
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 8764/2012
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 295/2013
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 296/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 304/2013
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 305/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 306/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 311-313/2013
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 444/2013
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 620/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 664/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 1507/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 1508/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1833/2013
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 5343/2013
(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 6716/2013
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 19001/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 9142-9144/2010
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 5344/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
Date : 09/09/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CA 9165-72/ 10
24
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Appellant(s) Mr. Amrendra Saran, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Prasad, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohit Singh, AOR
Mr. Sada Shiv Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv.
Appellant-in-person
Mr. K.C. Vishwakarma, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. D.P. Singh Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sullabh Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR
Dr. Vinod K. Tewari, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. K. L. Janjani, AOR
Mr. Mohan Pandey, AOR
Mr. Yatish Mohan, Adv.
Ms. Pooja, Adv.
Ms. Anand Bali, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR
Ms. T. Anamika, AOR
Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR
Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Kaushik Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Akarsh Garg, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. D.P. Singh Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR
CA 9165-72/ 10
25
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta II, AOR
Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, AOR
Mr. Dileep Tandon, Adv.
Mr. R.B. Phookan, Adv.
Ms. Neha T. Phookan, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR
Mr. Manoj Prasad, AOR
Mr. Rakesh U. Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. P.S. Deoghar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Reena Singh, AAG
Ms. Sakshi Mebley, Adv.
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
Mr. D.K. Goswami, Adv.
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, AOR
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, AOR
Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
Ms. T. Anamika, AOR
Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) No.1833 of 2013 and
S.L.P.(C) No.19001 of 2013.
The applications for impleadment filed in the civil
appeals are dismissed.
The appeals relating to U.P. State Cement
Corporation Limited are allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
CA 9165-72/ 10
26
C.A. Nos.716-717 of 2011, C.A. No.7880-7882 of 2011, W.P.(C)
No.541/2011, W.P.(C) No.372 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No.129/2012
th
Let these matters be listed on 7 October, 2015.
(Chetan Kumar)
(H.S. Parasher)
Court Master
Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)