- (1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has arisen in the following facts and circumstances. Vide Judgment dated November 7, 1996, in C.W.P. No. 1009 of 1966, which had been earlier filed by the writ petitioner Sh. R.P. Sharma (now respondent in the present L.P.A.), P.D. Sharma, J. had directed the respondent-Authorities to give effect to their own decision contained in Annexure E to that writ petition, meaning thereby that the petitioner had to be given the benefit of the 'war service'. In pursuance of that judgment, an order implementing the same was passed on August 13, 1968. Subsequently, some of the colleagues of Shri R.P. Sharma, (namely, Sarvshri S.S. Lamba, Joginder Nath, S.S. Sahi and B.S. Bhalla) who were likely to be affected by the judgment in C.W.P. No. 1009 of 1966 in the matter of seniority, challenged the same by filing C.W.P. No. 2395 of 1968. The learned Singh Judge (H.R. Sodhi, J.) of this Court vide judgment dated January 28, 1970, accepted the writ petition and held that the earlier judgment in C.W.P. No. 1009 of 1966 was not binding upon the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 2395 of 1968. Against this judgment in C.W.P. No. 2395 of 1968, Letters Patent Appeal No. 199 of 1970 was preferred by Sh. R.P. Sharma. While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal on November 11, 1970, the Division Bench observed as under in the penultimate paras :- "So far as respondents 1 to 4 are concerned, no exception can be taken to the decision of Sodhi, J. It is fundamental that no order vis-a-vis seniority can be passed to the prejudice of persons affected thereby unless those persons have been heard. If any authority is needed, reference may be mate to T. Devadarashan v. Union of India and another, 1964 AIR(SC) 179. Their Lordships observed that no relief could be given to the petitioner because the persons who may be affected by the order passed in favour of the petitioner had not been joined as respondent in the petition. Therefore, the order Annexure 'F' could in no circumstances affect the inter se rights between respondents 1 to 4 and the petitioner R.P. Sharma. This position was not seriously controverted by Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellant. It must be made clear that the order of Sodhi, J. does not affect the finality of the order of Sharma, J. was between R.P. Sharma and the Government, excepting with regard to the matter of the seniority. Whatever benefit R.P. Sharma is entitled by reason of that order vis-a-vis the Government, he is certainly entitled to, but only to the extent that the rights which he may acquire under that order do not adversely affect respondents 1 to 4. Mr. Awasthy then contended that whatever we may say while disposing of this appeal should not adversely affect the appellant in the matter of representation against the decision of the Government in the matter of fixing seniority in pursuance of the order of Sodhi, J. Actually we have said nothing on this matter. Whatever remedy or relief is open to the appellant, qua the fresh determination of seniority inter se him and respondents 1 to 4, is a matter which he can agitate if and when so advised."
(2.) During the pendency of L.P.A. No. 199 of 1970 and in pursuance of the judgment of Sodhi, J. in C.W.P. No. 2395 of 1968, the State Government passed another order on September 18, 1970 (Annexure P-6), whereby it was held that Shri R.P. Sharma was not entitled to the war service which he had rendered on account of his having been appointed in the Government service as temporary Engineer, which post did not fall in the category of "War reserved vacancies". Against this order of the Government, the writ-petitioner Shri R.P. Sharma had submitted a memorial to the Governor pointing out the implications of the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 199 of 1970, decided on November 11, 1970, and brought to the notice of the authorities that his rights as determined by the judgment of P.D. Sharma, J. in C.W.P. No. 1009 of 1966 had been kept intact by the Letters Patent Bench. However, the State Government rejected his memorial vide order Annexure P-8. This led to the filing of writ petition No. 1201 of 1973 by Shri R.P. Sharma, J.
(3.) The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, after noticing the above mentioned facts, held that there was no option with the respondent authorities except to give full effect to the Letters Patent Judgment dated November 11, 1970 (The relevant part of which has already been quoted above). The learned Singh Judge further noticed the fact that on the date the writ petition was heard by him (i.e. 17th August, 1982) the private parties to the litigation had retired and nobody was likely to be adversely affected in the matter of determining seniority of writ-petitioner Shri R.P. Sharma by implementing the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 199 of 1970. In the result, orders Annexures P-6 and P-8 were quashed and the authorities were directed to implement the judgment in C.W.P. No. 1009 of 1966 as upheld by the Letters Patent Bench in L.P.A. No. 199 of 1970. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State Government has come up in the present appeal.;