CHAKKANLAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two interim applications made in Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 1982 which was decided by this Court on January 1990. In interim application No. 2 of 1991 a direction is sought by the appellants of Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 1982 requiring the High Court to decide the issue regarding the applicability of the Government order regarding the grant of benefits of reservation in the matter of promotion for the employees working in the District Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In interim application No. 3 of 1991 some people have approached this Court to make them parties to the appeal and variation is sought in the final orders of disposal.

(2.) After the disposal of Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 1982 ail interim application No. 1 of 1990 was filed by some persons seeking impleadment and clarification. This Court expressed no opinion on the claim of the then applicants but left the High Court free to deal with the matter indicating that if there is no direction for reservation in accordance with law, it was open to the High Court to meet the situation by making its own order. That order was passed on 9.05.1991.

(3.) The High Court it appears taking stock of the mandate of both the orders afore referred to make an order on the administrative side on 26.7.1991 whereby benefits already granted to and being enjoyed by the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 1982 (termed revisionists) were ordered not to be disturbed. Consequential orders were passed to the effect that pecuniary benefits admissible to the revisionists in the aforesaid order dated 9.01.1991 be made available to them promptly if not done already. In face of this order the direction sought by the applicants in interim application No. 2 of 1991 is now of no substance. Similarly the directions sought for impleadment and variation of the order in Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 1982 by means of interim application No. 3 of 1991 becomes of no substance. Still the applicants in interim application No. 2 of 1991 have gone on to assail the orders of the High Court dated 26.07.1991 and have pressed for a direction on the basis set out below.