IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
15.
LPA 911/2010
S P SAXENA and ORS .....
Appellants
Through: Mr. S.P. Saxena, Mr. H.P. Chaudhary,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA and ORS .....
Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R
23.12.2010
CM 23021/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM 23020 and 23022 of 2010
These are applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing
the appeal. Regard being had to the averments made in the applications, delay
in filing and re-filing the appeal stands condoned. The applications stand
allowed.
LPA 911/2010
Heard the appellant in person and Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned
LPA 911/2010
Page 1 of 3
standing counsel for the respondents.
Calling in question the legal validity of the order dated 9th August,
2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4740/2008 which was
disposed of along with WP(C) No. 5332/2010, the present intra-Court appeal has
been preferred. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
it is clear as crystal that the petitioners were part of the writ petitions
which were filed before this Court and the same had faced dismissal. The
learned Single Judge has adverted to the same in detail. That apart, he has
taken note of the fact that the appellants had availed the benefit of the
voluntary retirement scheme and some of them had joined the previous petitioners
to challenge the said action after 15 years. That apart, he has also taken note
of the fact that the matter was also assailed before the Allahabad High Court
and the writ petition was disposed of. During the course of hearing of this
appeal today, Mr. Agarwal has also produced a copy of the order passed in SLP(C)
No. 16020/2001 arising out of the order dated 17.5.2001 in LPA No.256/2001,
wherein the Division Bench had declined to interfere with the challenge to the
scheme. The special leave petition was dismissed.
LPA 911/2010
Page 2 of 3
In our considered opinion, an attempt has been made to make a dead lis
rise like a phoenix but the law does not so countenance.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal
and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
15.
LPA 911/2010
S P SAXENA and ORS .....
Appellants
Through: Mr. S.P. Saxena, Mr. H.P. Chaudhary,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA and ORS .....
Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R
23.12.2010
CM 23021/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM 23020 and 23022 of 2010
These are applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing
the appeal. Regard being had to the averments made in the applications, delay
in filing and re-filing the appeal stands condoned. The applications stand
allowed.
LPA 911/2010
Heard the appellant in person and Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned
LPA 911/2010
Page 1 of 3
standing counsel for the respondents.
Calling in question the legal validity of the order dated 9th August,
2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4740/2008 which was
disposed of along with WP(C) No. 5332/2010, the present intra-Court appeal has
been preferred. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
it is clear as crystal that the petitioners were part of the writ petitions
which were filed before this Court and the same had faced dismissal. The
learned Single Judge has adverted to the same in detail. That apart, he has
taken note of the fact that the appellants had availed the benefit of the
voluntary retirement scheme and some of them had joined the previous petitioners
to challenge the said action after 15 years. That apart, he has also taken note
of the fact that the matter was also assailed before the Allahabad High Court
and the writ petition was disposed of. During the course of hearing of this
appeal today, Mr. Agarwal has also produced a copy of the order passed in SLP(C)
No. 16020/2001 arising out of the order dated 17.5.2001 in LPA No.256/2001,
wherein the Division Bench had declined to interfere with the challenge to the
scheme. The special leave petition was dismissed.
LPA 911/2010
Page 2 of 3
In our considered opinion, an attempt has been made to make a dead lis
rise like a phoenix but the law does not so countenance.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal
and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
