State Of Uttarakhand &Amp; Anr vs Rajendra Singh Arya &Amp; Anr on 16 November, 2009

      REPORTABLE

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              CIVIL APPEAL NO.7597 OF 2009

             [Arising out of SLP)No.18194 of 2007]   State of Uttarakhand &
Anr. ...  Appellants

VERSUS

Rajendra Singh Arya & Anr. ...Respondents   JUDGMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by Special Leave arises from the judgment  and final order dated
19th of August, 2006 passed by the  High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in
Writ Petition No.  258 (SB) of 2006 whereby the High Court had allowed the  Writ
Petition of the Respondent No.1, relying upon the  law laid down by the High
Court of Allahabad, Lucknow  Bench in the case of In Re: Suresh Chandra Sharma
&  Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors, [(2002) 1 UPLBEC 2

 18], in which it was held that an incumbent shall be  allowed seniority with
all consequential benefits from the  year of allotment by the State Public
Service Commission.

3. At this stage, be it mentioned that the High Court by its  impugned order,
allowing the Writ Petition had observed  the following:

       "Following the judgment of the Lucknow Bench, this Court had also
disposed of the Writ Petition no. 39(SB)/2005. Keeping in view of the said
observations, we are of the opinion that the Respondents should be directed to
treat the Petitioner having been promoted substantively as Forest Ranger from
the year 1987-88 and to give consequential benefits to him. The Petitioner
should be given seniority accordingly."



4. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Uttarakhand has come up  in this Court by way
of a special leave petition which on  grant of leave was heard in the presence
of the learned  counsel for the parties.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  also examined the
impugned order. On a plain reading of  the impugned judgment of the High Court,
it is crystal  clear that the High Court, while allowing the Writ Petition 3

 of the Respondent No.1, had only relied on the decision of  the Lucknow Bench,
In Re: Suresh Chandra (Supra)  which had held that an incumbent shall be allowed
seniority with all consequential benefits from the year of  allotment by the
State Public Service Commission.

6. This judgment rendered in In Re: Suresh Chandra  (supra) was challenged by
way of a special leave in  Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Association (Direct
Recruits) & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2006  (10) SCC 346]
and the views expressed in the case of  Suresh Chandra (supra) was upset by this
Court by the  aforesaid decision. While allowing the appeal of the State  of
Uttarakhand, this Court had set aside the judgment  delivered in Suresh Chandra
(supra) on which reliance  was placed by the High Court in the impugned
judgment.

7. That being the position and in view of the fact that the  decision on the
basis of which the High Court had  delivered its judgment has already been
overruled, we  have no other alternative but to set aside the order and to  send
the matter on remand to the High Court to decide 4

 the same in accordance with law. While deciding the writ  petition after
remand, it is expected that the High Court  will take into consideration the law
laid down by this  Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers  Association
(supra).

8. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The High  Court is requested to
decide the matter keeping in mind  the views expressed by this Court in the case
of  Uttaranchal Forest Association (supra) within three  months from the date of
production of a copy of this  order to it.

9. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed to  the extent
indicated above. There shall be no order as to  costs.

  ...........................J.

                                       [Tarun Chatterjee]

  New Delhi; ...........................J. November 16, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]