UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusRAM KUMAR THAKUR

                        [2008] 14 S.C.R. 494


A                  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                          }--         ;

                                 v.
                      RAM KUMAR THAKUR
                  (Civil Appeal No.6112 of 2008)
                        OCTOBER 15, 2008
B
         [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                                                                                )
                        SHARMA, JJ.]                                >--·
                                                                    I




         Service Law:                                                         ...
c       Re-instatement - Single Judge of High Court ordered
  re-instatement of employee - Employer filed writ appeal cha/-
  /enging the order bµt at the same time implemented the order
  by re-instating the employee - Division Bench of High Court
  dismissed the writ appealas infructuous - Propriety of - Held:
D Not proper - Writ appeal to be heard by Division Bench on
  merits.
       The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed writ
                                                                        t--
  appeal filed by the Appellants as infructuous on the
  ground that_ Respondent-employee had been. reinstated
E in service pursuant to the judgment of the Single Judge
  which was impugned in the writ appeal.
       In appeal to this Court, it was contended that merely
  because the . order of. the Single
                                   . . Judge . was implemented

F to avoid possible  contempt   proceedings     that did not take
  a.way the right of the appellants to question the correct-        \-
  ness of .the said order and file appeal thereagainst.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court

G         HELD:1.1. Even in cases where interim relief is not
     granted in favour of the applicant and the order is imple-
     mented that does not furnish a ground for not entertain-
                                                                    ~
     ing the appeal to be heard on merits. [Para 4] [496-D]


H'                              494
                      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAM KUMAR                 495
                                   THAKUR

------!          1.2. The impugned order of the High court cannot be            A
            maintained and is set aside. The writ appeal shall be heard
            by the High Court on merits. [Para 7] [497-8]

                  Nagar Mahapalika v. State of UP (2006) 5 SCC 127;
            Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Kamataka (2005) 10 SCC 383
                                                                                B
            and Unio!] of India v. Narender Singh (2005) 6 SCC 106 -
            relied on.
 ---',
        '
                                CASE LAW REFERENCE

                 c2006) 5 sec 121            relied on             Para 4       c
                 (2005) 1o sec 383           relied on             Para 4

                 (2005) 6 sec 106            relied on             Para 6

                 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6112             D
            of 2008

                 From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2006 of
            the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in CDLSW
            No. 150 of 2006 in Rest (CDLSW) No. D-114/2004 C/W Rest
            (LPA) No. 13 of2006                                                 E

                A. Sharna, ASG., Binu Tamta and Sushma Suri for the
            Appellants.

                 Om Prakash Mishra, Prathibha Shukla and Ghan Shyam             F
 -·-Y
            Vasisht for the Respondent.

                 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                 DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                                G
                 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
   ..
   ~
            Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the
            appeal filed by the present appellants on the ground that the
            respondent had been reinstated in service pursuant to the judg-
            ment of the learned single Judge which was impugned in the          H
    496       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 14 S.C.R.


A   writ appeal filed before the Division Bench. The High Court held
    that the appeal had therefore become infructuous.                   r
                                                                        \




         2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the im-
    pugned order of the High Court has no legal basis. Merely be-
    cause the impugned order ·before the High Court was imple-
B
    mented to avoid possible contempt proceedings that did not
    take away the right of the appellants to prefer an appeal and
    question correctness of the impugned order.                         t--
        3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
c   supported the judgment. ·
                                             .
       4. It has been noted by this Court that if even in cases
  where interim relief is not granted in favour of the applicant and
  the order is implemented that does not furnish a ground for not
D entertaining the appeal to be heard on merits. (See : Nagar
  Mahapalika v. State of U.P [2006(5) SCC 127]. Similar view
  was also take in Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Kamataka
  r2oos(1 O) sec 383].
                                                                            !---
          5. In Union of India v. GR. Prabhava/kar & Ors. [1973(4)
E   sec 183] it was observed at para 23 as follows:
          "Mr Singhvi, learned counsel, then referred us to the fact
          that after the judgment of the High Court the State
          Government has passed an order on March 19, 1971., the
F         effect of which is to equate the Sales Tax Officers of the
          erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax             ~·-
          Officers, Grade Ill of Bombay. This order, in our opinion,
          has been passed by the State Government only to comply
          with the directions given by the High Court. It was made
G         during a period when the appeal against the judgment
          was pending in this Court. The fact that the State
          Government took steps to comply with the directions of
          the High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal       1-
          by the Union of India has become infructuous."
H
          UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. RAM KUMAR                497
             THAKUR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

    6. Above position was also noted in Union of India v.          A
Narender Singh [2005(6) SCC 106].

      7. Above being the position the impugned order of the High
Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. The writ appeal
shall be heard by the High Court on merits ~bout which we ex-
                                                                   8
press no opinion. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid ex-
tent. No costs.
8.8.B.                                         Appeal allowed.