GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE Vs. AMARJIT SINGH
LAWS(DLH)-1983-11-16
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on November 25,1983

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
KEWAL KRISHAN MITTAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DYSON V. ATTORNEY GENERAL [REFERRED TO]
BERNARD V. NATIONAL DOC LABOUR BOARD [REFERRED TO]
RADHA RAM V. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BARNALA [REFERRED TO]
D.N.PRASAD STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
PYX GRANITE CO. V. MINISTER OF HOUSING [REFERRED TO]
KANDE V. GOVT. OF MALAYA [REFERRED TO]
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB V. PANDIT TARA CHAND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. ABDULMAJID [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA PRATAP NARAIN RAI SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN MURARI LAL SEHGAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MAIMOONAKHATUN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD SHARIF [REFERRED TO]
PAPPY VS. CHERIYAN [REFERRED TO]
TARAK NATH GHOSH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR INDIA VS. I M LALL [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA NATH DEY VS. SURESH CHANDRA DEY [REFERRED TO]
ABDULLA ASGHAR ALI VS. GANESH DAS VIG [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

N S DASS BAHL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1991-10-58] [REFERRED]
RAJENDER JAIPURIA VS. TILAK RAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2004-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
HAMMAD AHMED VS. ABDUL MUEED [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
J K SHAH VS. BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-429] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUPATTUR NAGARATHU VYSIYARGAL SANGAM VS. TIRUPATTUR PERIYAKULAM NANDAVANAM INAM LAND TENANTS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(MAD)-1997-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN DASS UDASI VS. RANJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1986-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
VRAT PAUL GUPTA VS. BOARD OF GOVERNORS IIT DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1994-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH CHAND ADVOCATE VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-1992-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
SANT LAL VS. SUDAKAR [LAWS(P&H)-2000-1-3] [REFERRED]
MOHD. YOSUF KHAN (DR.) & ORS. VS. SOFI GH. QADIR & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2010-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER MOHAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1998-4-94] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Avadh Behari,J. - (1.)The single question in these proceedings is whether this court can issue a direction to the Union of India for the payment of arrears of salary to the Government servant after the dismissal order has been set aside.
(2.)This is a tale of twenty years. The respondent, late Shri Kewal Krishan Mittal, in 1963 brought a suit for declaration that his services had been wrongly terminated by the appellant, Union of India. At the relevant time he was holding the post of a Managing Officer-cum-Assistant Custodian at Delhi. On 14th June, 1960 his services were terminated. The principal ground of challange was that Art. 311 of the Constitution was breached. He clamed a decree of Rs. 2,358.72 as the difference between the suspension allowance and his pay. The subordinate judge decreed the suit on 2nd December, 1967. The Union of India appealed. The Additional District Judge by order dated 30th October, 1971 accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. On a second appeal to this court H.L. Anand J. reversed the lower appellate court and restored the decree of the trial court. He declared that the order of termination of the appellant's services was null and void and that that he continued to be in service throughout. He also gave a decree for Rs. 2,358.72.
(3.)From the order of the learned single judge the Union of India filed a letters patent appeal on 17th December, 1974. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this court on 2nd April, 1975. On 31st October, 1978 Shri Mittal died. This fact was brought to the notice of counsel of the Union of India. But as no steps were taken to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record, the appeal abated. This was sought to apply for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay. Time was granted. But no application for setting aside the abatement was made. As a result on 29th July, 1980 we held that the appeal had abated and as no steps for setting aside the abatement were taken the record be consigned to the record room. Because there was nothing else to do. Later on an application for setting aside the abatement was made. That application we dismissed on 5th August, 1980.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.