NARAYAN SONI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the order of the court, the Executive Engineer is present in Court and has also filed a counter affidavit. Since no factual controversy is involved, the writ petition is being decided at this stage without calling for a rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner along with several others petitioners filed writ petition No. 3976 (S/S) of 1997, Nirmal Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others before the Lucknow Bench of this Court praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide them a pay scale of 1200-2040 as revised to 4000-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996 on the basis of the Fifth Pay Commission. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 13th September, 2005 and a mandamus in terms of the relief claimed was issued.

(2.) THE petitioner, Sri Narayan Soni and seven others also filed writ petition no. 29935 of 1998 before this Court praying for a similar relief. This Court allowed the writ petition of the petitioner by a judgment dated 28th July, 2006 in terms of the judgment in Nirmal Singh's case (supra). The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that inspite of the judgment of this Court in his favour, the benefits are not being provided to the petitioner in terms of the said judgment. The petitioner accordingly, has prayed that the respondents be directed to provide all the benefits pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court on 22nd July, 2006 and further pay retiral benefits along with arrears plus interest at the rate of 18% per annum, since the petitioner, in the meanwhile, had retired on 31st January, 2012.

(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid admitted facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, in the matter of Nirmal Singh, revives and becomes operative and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the relief in terms of that judgment. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be attractive in the first blush, but on a closer scrutiny, the Court is of the opinion that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. The reason is not far to see. At the moment, there is no judgment which can be enforced in the eyes of law. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, in the matter of Nirmal Singh has been set aside in a Special Appeal by judgment dated 18th December, 2008. The effect of the order of the Division Bench in Special Appeal means that it has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and has wiped out from its existence. Consequently, no judgment exists in the eyes of law. The jugement of the Division Bench which has been stayed by the Supreme Court does not mean that the judgment of the Division Bench has been wiped out from its existence. It only means that the implementation of that judgment has been stayed till further orders of the Court. By merely staying the order of the Division Bench, does not, in the opinion of the Court, revives a non-existent order of the learned Single Judge. This view of the Court is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India Trust Association 1992 Volume (3), Supreme Court cases (1) paragraph 10 wherein the Court has dealt at length the effect of an interim order passed by a Court. The Supreme Court held:-