Yogesh Kumar vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

18 March 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 3823 of 2025

Result

Allowed

Bench

Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Augustine George Masih

Citation

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 890 : 2025 INSC 379

Acts & Sections

Constitution

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court was justified in non-suiting the appellant and others on the ground that an appropriate civil action would mean the proceedings only before a Civil Court and not Writ Court.

Headnote

Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ Court – Appropriate Civil action – Civil Court – Hyper-technical view – Payment of salary for service rendered – In an earlier SLP, petitioners including appellant had sought liberty to claim payment of salary for the period they have worked – While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners for any such relief in an appropriate civil action – Appellant and others made representation for payment of salary – Representation was rejected – Writ Petition – The appellant was non-suited, since the writ Court was not a civil Court – Correctness: Held: The High Court has non-suited the appellant and others on the ground that an appropriate civil action would mean the proceedings only before a Civil Court – While exercising the jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not expected to be hypertechnical – The position that the appellant and others had, in fact, put in eight years of service is not disputed by anyone – It is settled 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 u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India – 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 – In that view of the matter, the judgment passed by the Single Judge as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench are not at all sustainable in law – The respondents are directed to pay salary of the appellant herein and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which they have actually worked in the District Court. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]

Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 16th May 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter, “High Court”) in Special Appeal Defective No.456 of 2019, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant herein challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 23rd May 2018 came to be dismissed. 4. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: 4.1 The appellant, in response to the

View Subscription Plans →