REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7597 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP©No.18194 of 2007]

State of Uttarakhand & Anr.                    …

Appellants

VERSUS

Rajendra Singh Arya & Anr.                    …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by Special  Leave arises from the judgment  

and final order dated 19th of August, 2006 passed by the  

High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No.  

258 (SB) of 2006 whereby the High Court had allowed the  

Writ  Petition of the Respondent No.1,  relying upon the  

law laid down by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow  

Bench in the case of In Re: Suresh Chandra Sharma &  

Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors, [(2002) 1 UPLBEC  

1

18],  in  which it  was  held  that  an incumbent  shall  be  

allowed seniority with all consequential benefits from the  

year of allotment by the State Public Service Commission.  

3. At this stage, be it mentioned that the High Court by its  

impugned order, allowing the Writ Petition had observed  

the following:

“Following  the  judgment  of  the  Lucknow  Bench,  this  Court  had  also  disposed  of  the   Writ Petition no. 39(SB)/2005. Keeping in view  of the said observations, we are of the opinion   that  the  Respondents  should  be  directed  to   treat  the  Petitioner  having  been  promoted  substantively as Forest Ranger from the year   1987-88 and to give consequential benefits to   him. The Petitioner  should be given seniority   accordingly.”

4. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Uttarakhand has come up  

in this Court by way of a special leave petition which on  

grant of leave was heard in the presence of the learned  

counsel for the parties.  

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  

also examined the impugned order. On a plain reading of  

the impugned judgment of the High Court, it is crystal  

clear that the High Court, while allowing the Writ Petition  

2

of the Respondent No.1, had only relied on the decision of  

the  Lucknow  Bench,  In  Re:  Suresh  Chandra (Supra)  

which  had  held  that  an  incumbent  shall  be  allowed  

seniority with all consequential benefits from the year of  

allotment by the State Public Service Commission.  

6. This  judgment  rendered  in  In  Re:  Suresh  Chandra  

(supra)  was  challenged  by  way  of  a  special  leave  in  

Uttaranchal  Forest  Rangers  Association  (Direct  

Recruits) & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2006  

(10)  SCC 346]  and the  views expressed in  the  case  of  

Suresh Chandra (supra) was upset by this Court by the  

aforesaid decision. While allowing the appeal of the State  

of Uttarakhand, this Court had set aside the judgment  

delivered in Suresh Chandra (supra)  on which reliance  

was placed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.  

7.  That being the position and in view of the fact that the  

decision  on  the  basis  of  which  the  High  Court  had  

delivered  its  judgment  has  already  been  overruled,  we  

have no other alternative but to set aside the order and to  

send the matter on remand to the High Court to decide  

3

the same in accordance with law. While deciding the writ  

petition after remand, it is expected that the High Court  

will  take  into  consideration  the  law laid  down by  this  

Court  in  the  case  of  Uttaranchal  Forest  Rangers  

Association (supra).   

8. The  impugned  order  is,  therefore,  set  aside.  The  High  

Court is requested to decide the matter keeping in mind  

the  views  expressed  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  

Uttaranchal  Forest  Association (supra)  within  three  

months  from the  date  of  production  of  a  copy  of  this  

order to it.

9. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is allowed to  

the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to  

costs.   

………………………J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ………………………J. November 16, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]

4