Monday, March 27, 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 465 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6048 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr. … Petitioners Versus K. Ganesan (Dead) by LRs … Respondents WITH REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 472 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6371 OF 2010



O R D E R
Prayer for oral hearing in open Court is rejected.
The instant petitions, which have been filed by the petitioners for review
of order dated 1.9.2016 passed by this Court in the aforementioned civil
appeals, are barred by limitation. The Review Petition (Civil) No.465 of 2017
is barred by 70 days, whereas Review Petition (C) No.472 of 2017 is barred
by 138 days. We do not find any justification to condone the said delay.
That apart, we have carefully perused the petitions for review, the order
impugned and the papers annexed in support thereof. We do not find any
ground therein warranting review of the aforementioned order.
The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay
as well on merits.
.………………..……………….…....…CJI.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
.………………...…………………….……J.
(Arun Mishra)
New Delhi;
March 22, 2017.
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2017.03.23
15:46:12 TLT
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
CHAMBER MATTER SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
R.P.(C) No.465/2017 In C.A. No.6048/2010
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
K. GANESAN (DEAD) BY LRS. Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and oral
hearing and office report)
WITH
R.P.(C) No.472/2017 In C.A. No.6371/2010
(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and oral
hearing and Office Report)
Date : 22/03/2017 These petitions were circulated today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
By Circulation
UPON perusing papers the Court made the following
O R D E R
Prayer for oral hearing in open Court is rejected.
The review petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay
as well on merits in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RENUKA SADANA)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6048 OF 2010
(with applications for impleadments)
Union of India and another ..Appellants
versus
K. Ganesan (Dead) By Lr. ..Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6371 OF 2010
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, and
having perused the record of the case, we find no justification
whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order, directing
restoration of 2/3rd pension in respect of the respondent herein,
after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation.
The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
IA Nos. 2/2008, 3/2009, 4/2010 & IA 5/2013 in CA No.6048/2010
We find no justification in entertaining the instant
interlocutory applications on behalf of persons who had not availed
of their remedy before the competent Court. It would be
inappropriate for us to examine the veracity of their claims, in
the first instance.
We accordingly decline the prayer for impleadment, and
while doing so, grant liberty to the applicants to seek an
appropriate alternate remedy, as may be available to them, in
accordance with law.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6048 OF 2010
(with applications for impleadments)
Union of India and another ..Appellants
versus
K. Ganesan (Dead) By Lr. ..Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6371 OF 2010
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, and
having perused the record of the case, we find no justification
whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order, directing
restoration of 2/3rd pension in respect of the respondent herein,
after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation.
The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
IA Nos. 2/2008, 3/2009, 4/2010 & IA 5/2013 in CA No.6048/2010
We find no justification in entertaining the instant
interlocutory applications on behalf of persons who had not availed
of their remedy before the competent Court. It would be
inappropriate for us to examine the veracity of their claims, in
the first instance.
We accordingly decline the prayer for impleadment, and
while doing so, grant liberty to the applicants to seek an
appropriate alternate remedy, as may be available to them, in
accordance with law.
2
The applications for impleadment are accordingly disposed
of in the aforesaid terms.
Civil Appeal No. 6371 of 2010
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
In view of dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 6048 of 2010 by
us today (Union of India and another vs. K. Ganesan (Dead) By Lr.),
this appeal has to be accepted.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order of the High Court is set aside. It is directed that the
appellants shall be entitled for restoration of their 2/3rd
pension, after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation.
…...................J.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
NEW DELHI; …...................J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2016. [ARUN MISHRA]
3
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 6048/2010
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
K.GANESAN (DEAD) BY LRS. Respondent(s)
(with appln(s) for amendment of the impleadment application and
impleadment and office report)
WITH
C.A. No. 6371/2010(with Office Report)
W.P.(C) No. 1028/2013
(With (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents
and appln.(s) for interim relief and Office Report)
Date : 01/09/2016 These appeals/petition were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Appellant(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG
in CA No. 6048/2010 Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
& for respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Adv.
In connected cases Ms. Gunwant Dara, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
for Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,AOR
For Appellant(s) Dr. K.B. Sounder Rajan, Adv.
In CA No.6371/2010 Ms. Shriya Raj Chauhan, Adv.
& for respondent for Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR
in CA 6048/2010
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Saransh Jain, Adv.
In WP 1028/2013 Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv.
for Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv.
(applicant(s) in Mr. K. V. Mohan,Adv.
IA 2 & 4 in CA No. Mr. K.V. Balakrishnan, adv.
6048/2010)
Mr. Sumit Attri,AOR
Ms. Shipra Ghose,Adv.
4
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No. 6048/2010 stands dismissed in terms of
the signed order.
The applications for impleadment stand disposed of in
terms of the signed order.
Civil Appeal No. 6371 of 2010 stands allowed in terms of
the signed order.
At the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, and in the interest of justice, list Writ Petition No.
1028/2013 for hearing on 07.09.2016.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar)
Assistant Registrar AR-cum-PS
[signed order in Civil Appeals is placed on the file]
Post a Comment