Skip to content


State of Orissa and Others, Etc. Vs. Niranjan Nayak and Another, Etc. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Constitution ;Service

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Appeal Nos. 3179 with 3180-3201 of 1997, etc. (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23835 of 1996 with 1

Judge

Reported in

AIR1997SC2621; 84(1997)CLT370(SC); JT1997(5)SC374; 1997(4)SCALE19; (1997)10SCC112; [1997]3SCR897

Appellant

State of Orissa and Others, Etc.

Respondent

Niranjan Nayak and Another, Etc.

Appellant Advocate

Jana Kalyan Das and S. Misra, Advs.,; for (P.N. Misra), Adv

Respondent Advocate

A. Mariarputham, ; Mohan Kr. Mohanty, Ms. Aruna Mathur and ;

Prior history

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.04.95 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No.1196 of 1994

Excerpt:


- section 16: [dr. arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly, jj] sentence - high court upheld conviction of accused and imposed fine of rs.6,000/- and directed that same is in commutation of sentence of six months r.i. as awarded by trial court held, order of high court is liable to be set aside. however, since occurrence took place nearly three decades back accused permitted to move appropriate government to commute sentence of imprisonment. .....writ petitions without reference to the relevant rules. it is settled law that the cut off date has to be valid and bears reasonable relationship to the object sought to be achieved.5. it is stated that the teachers are relying upon rule 9 of 1974 rules. we are informed that several writ petitions are pending in the high court on the basis of rule 9. in that view of this matter, it may be desirable that all these matters be decided by the high court.6. taking an over all view of all the facts, the appeals are allowed. the judgment of the high court stands set aside. the high court is at liberty to consider the matter afresh. learned counsel for the respondents states that orders were implemented subject to the result of the appeals. implementation of the order does not stand on the way of the high court is have the matters examined. no costs.

Judgment:


K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.

1. Leave granted.

2. We have learned Counsel on both sides.

3. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, made on April 19, 1995 in O.J.C. No. 1196 of 1994 and batch.

4. The Government has prescribed April 1, 1981 as the cut off date for acquisition of the qualification and those who have acquired the qualifications prior to that date are entitled to the additional amounts as prescribed under the Rules. The High Court has allowed writ petitions without reference to the relevant Rules. It is settled law that the cut off date has to be valid and bears reasonable relationship to the object sought to be achieved.

5. It is stated that the teachers are relying upon Rule 9 of 1974 Rules. We are informed that several writ petitions are pending in the High Court on the basis of Rule 9. In that view of this matter, it may be desirable that all these matters be decided by the High Court.

6. Taking an over all view of all the facts, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The High Court is at liberty to consider the matter afresh. Learned Counsel for the respondents states that orders were implemented subject to the result of the appeals. Implementation of the order does not stand on the way of the High Court is have the matters examined. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //