VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR A P S R T C HYDERABAD Vs. N RAGAREDDI EX CONDUCTOR ALUMPUR VEMULAWADA KARIMNGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.

(2.) A most unique circular, which in respects violates directions of Courts, it is alleged, has been issued by the appellant - Corporation interpreting the meaning of various directions which are contained in the orders of the Courts or the awards made against it. As a consequence of the above, directions of the Court are ignored and the circular allegedly interpreting the various expressions in the judgments is implemented. Learned single Judge, has taken notice of the grave injustice such circular has caused to the writ petitioner - respondent who has been ordered to be reinstated. Learned single Judge has rightly taken notice of the consequences of an order of reinstatement. In all circumstances when a certain person is reinstated with back wages or without back wages, he has to be above his next junior and placed in the time scale of pay with all admissible emoluments including allowances at the level of fitment after reinstatement. Corporation's circular is such that it appears not only to interfere with the directions of the Courts but also attempts to give some sort of administrative review of the directions issued by the Court. Each direction of the Court, it is obvious has to be examined and implemented in full. No one can claim to have examined a direction of the Court before the said direction is placed before it for implementation. Any attempt to speculate the effect of a direction of the Court by way of a general circular will advance the cause of injustice instead of promoting the cause of justice. Learned single Judge has rightly rejected the appellant's contention. We hold, in agreement with the learned single Judge, that Corporation shall be well advised that it learn to implement the orders/directions of the Court without demur, subject to its right of appeal, if any. By doing this, Corporation shall delist itself from the general run of litigants, otherwise today it stands in the list of most cantankerous litigants. There is no merit in the appeal.

(3.) Appeal is accordingly dismissed.