MOOL SHANKAR SINGHversusREGIONAL MANAGER, P.N.B. AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2004 INSC 169
- Decided
- 12 March 2004
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The High Court must consider the employee's grievance on its merits; the earlier direction for representation does not preclude further judicial review.
Summary
Mool Shankar Singh, an employee, claimed entitlement to a higher special allowance and made a representation which was rejected. He approached the High Court via a writ petition under Article 226, where the Court only directed that a representation be made and did not consider the grievance on its merits. Singh subsequently filed a civil appeal challenging the High Court's order. The Court held that the earlier direction for representation did not close the matter and that the appellant was entitled to have his grievance examined on its merits. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a merits-based consideration of the claim for higher special allowance.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court, after directing a representation in a writ petition, is barred from later considering the grievance on its merits.
- Whether the appellant can approach the High Court again for relief after the representation is rejected.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Subjects
Judgment
A MOOL SHANKAR SINGH
v. (
REGIONAL MANAGER, P.N.B. AND ANR.
MARCH 12, 2004
B [BRJJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
------
Article 226-Writ petition before High Court pertaining to claim for
c higher special allowance-D{sposed of with a direction to make _...
representation-Representation made but rejected-Employee again
{
approaching High Court__;_Grievance of employee not considered on merits-
Held, merely because in the earlier writ petition the High Court had provided
only for making representation, it would not mean that the matter is closed
D and the petitioner was not entitled to approach High Court-High Court
should have considered the grievance of the employee on merits -Matter
remanded to High Court for consideration on merits-Practice and Procedure.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1591 of2004.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.2002 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 2196 of 1994. _......._
Mohan Pandey for the Appellant.
F Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Choudhary, Mrs. Shalini Gupta for Mis. K.L.
Mehta & Co., for the Respondents.
--..,,...
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
G Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In our view the High Court should have considered the grievance of the
appellant on merits pertaining to his claim for higher special .allowances.
Merely because in the earlier writ petition the High Court had provided only t_
H 1178
M.S. SINGH v. REGIONAL MANAGER. P.N.B. 1179
for making representation, it would not mean that the matter is closed and the A
petitioner was not entitled to approach the High Court, later even though the
representation was rejected and no relief was granted to him. The High Court
never considered the case on merits.
We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the
High Court and remand the matter for consideration on merits. B
R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.