Supreme Court: Relief Can Be Granted Under Article 226 Even In Cases Of Disputed Questions Of Fact If They Can Be Decided Based On Affidavits
The Supreme Court granted relief to the employees of the District Judiciary whose Writ Petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court asking them to approach a Civil Court instead.
Justice BR Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court granted relief to the employees of the District Judiciary who had put in eight years of service and observed that the Court is not expected to be hypertechnical while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the plea of an employee who worked as a Stenographer.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih asserted, “In any case, the State as well as the High Courts are expected to be model litigants. The High Court is not expected to take a hyper-technical view, when dealing with the case of payment of salary of the employees of the District Judiciary, who have actually put in eight years of service.”
The Court further held, "It has been held that even in cases where there are disputed questions of fact, where such disputes can be decided on the basis of an affidavit evidence and no elaborate evidence is required to be led, the High Court would be justified in granting a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India".
Advocate Dr. L.S. Chaudhary represented the Appellant while Advocate Vishal Meghwal represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant along with the other six persons, who were found suitable in the selection process were appointed to the post of Stenographer and assumed their charge on April 16, 2002. However, subsequently, it was found that the number of advertised posts was only three and four additional persons including the appellant herein were appointed in excess. In the year 2005, the District Judge passed an order terminating the services of the appellant and three others.
Being aggrieved by the termination, the appellant and three others approached the Single Judge of the High Court but the said writ petition came to be dismissed. The appellant and others also made representation before the District Judge, Saharanpur for payment of their salary for the period during which they had worked but the same was rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant and others preferred the Writ Petition before the Single Judge which came to be dismissed. An intra-court appeal was also dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench found that though at the relevant time, there were only three regular vacancies, since the Fast Track Courts were functioning, the appellant and others were appointed to work in the Fast Track Courts. Subsequently, after these Courts ceased to function, the services of the appellant and others were terminated.
Noting that the termination of the appellant had been upheld by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court as well as by the Apex Court, the Bench clarified, “...the dismissal of the special leave petition shall not prevent the appellant and others from seeking any such relief in an appropriate civil action.” Affirming the view of the Single Judge in correctly considering the definition of a ‘civil action’; the Bench said, “..while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not expected to be hypertechnical.”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the appellant and others had put in eight years of service. Reference was made to the judgment in ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others (2004) wherein it has held that even in cases where there are disputed questions of fact, where such disputes can be decided based on an affidavit evidence and no elaborate evidence is required to be led, the High Court would be justified in granting a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and said, “...the respondents are directed to pay the salary of the appellant herein and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which they have actually worked in the District Court.”
Moreover, in light of the fact that the appellant and others were made to run from one Court to another, specifically after 2012, the Bench held that the appellant would also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs 1 lakh
Cause Title: Yogesh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh And Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 379)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Dr L.S. Chaudhary, AOR Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Advocates Dr. Ajay Chaudhary, Ds Chaudhary, Vishesh Kumar, Vinita, Monika Chaudhary, Bharat Chaudhary, Vikram Singh, S. Parambir Singh
Respondent: Advocate Vishal Meghwal, AOR Charu Mathur