y !'. M fflGH COURT OF CmiATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS R.eyjew Petition No. 33 of 2008 Padamdhar Singh S/o Late Shri Shivbaran Singh, aged about 63 years, District Librarian, R/o Street No. 11, New Pension Bada, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Du-ector, Public Instructions, Directorate of P^blic Instructions, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. The District Education Officer, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) REVJE'SLPETrriQN ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 15.01.2008 PASSED BY THEHQN'BLECOURT IN W.P. N0. 4793/2005 "PADAMDHAR SDSfGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS. (S.B. Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) n Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Sudeep Agrawal, for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. TUDGMENT & ORDER (Passed on .... A^ day of July, 2009) Heard leamed counsel for the parties. I.A. No. 1, this is an application for condonation ofdelay. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the consequential benefits as ordered by this Court in W.P. No. 4793/2005 (Padamdhar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) on 15.01.2008, the petitioner has pursued the remedy bonafidely under the other provisions of law. Thus, there is delay in filing this application for review. s '^^^1 ^ ^'-^^^^ is. s%^ .^. t/'^. 7. In response, leamed oounsel appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the delay has not been properiy explained and as such, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Having examined all the aspects of the case, I am of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in filing the review petition belatedly. In the interest ofjustice, the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, delay is condoned. This Court, after having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, passed the order dated 15.01.2008 in W.P. No. 4793/2005, wHigiriS" sought to be reviewed for modification of the order. In para 4, it was ordered as under: "4. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the order dated 2.4.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5073/2006. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits flowing from the order dated 31.3.2007. No order, asto costs." "^- The petitioner was denied consequential benefits for a reasonably long time as the order was passed on 15.01.2008, thus, this Court was moved for determining the specific time for grant ofconsequential benefits. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents firstly questions the order which is sought to be reviewed on merit which is not permissible in review petition filed by other side. Secondly, it was urged that since the matter is pending consideration in W.A. No. 94/2008 wherein notice has been issued on application for condonation ofdelay, the respondent authorities are not obliged to comply with the order passed by this Court on 15.01.2008 in W.P. No. 4793/2005. It is a trite law that an appeal does not automatically suspend the operation of the order appealed from unless the appellate court stays it or statute conferring right of appeal provides for such a stay. 10. 11 3- Admittedly, in appeal which appears to have been filed after specified period of limitation, notice on condonation of delay has been issued. There is no order to stay fhe operation ofthe order dated 15.01.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4793/2005. The principle of law under such situation wherein appeal is pending consideration, however, no notice was issued on merit and no stay of the operation of the order impugned therein was granted, is well settled by a catena ofdecisions ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court. yglf^ The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter ofKamla Devi v. observed as under: "6.......The filing of an appeal does not automatically suspend the operation of an order appealed from unless the appellate court stays it or a statute conferring right of for such a stay. Section 40 of fhe Act cohfers a right of appeal on an aggrieved party against the final orderof a Tri6unal to the High Court. The section conferring the said gower does not provide for a statutory stay of the order o-f the Tribunal till the disposal of the appeal......" Further, in the matter of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. , observed as under: "8; It is well settled that mere preferring of an appeal does not operate as stay on the decree or order appealed against nor on the proceedings in the coiirt below. A prayer for the grant of stay of proceedings or on the execution of decree or order appealed against has to be specifically made to the appellate court and the appellate court has discretion to grant an order of stay or to refase the same....." The above ratio as laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated in Rafique Bibi (Dead) by LRs v. Sayed Waliuddin (Dead) by LRs ,as under: "7.......Theordermaybe 'anullity' and 'void' but these terms have no absolute sense: their meaning is relative, depending upon the cpurt's wilUngness to grant relief in any particular sftuation. If this principte of illegal relativity is bome in mind, the law can be made to operate justly and reasonably in cases ' AIR 1964 SC 859 2 (2005) 1 SCC 705 3 (2004) 1 SCC 287 ^- where the doctrine of ultra vires, rigidly applied, would produce unacceptable Ksults." (Administrative Ldw, Wade and Porsyth, 8th Edn., 2000, p. 308.) Secondly, there is a distinction between mere administrative orders and the decrees ofcourts, especially a syperior court. "The order ofa superior court such as the High Court, must always be pbeyed no matter what flaws it may be thought to contain. Thus a party who disobeys a High Court injunction is punishable for conteinpt of court even though it was granted in proceedings deemed to have been irrevocably abandoned owing to the expiry of a time-limit." 12. Applying the well settled principles of law as stated above to the facts of the case, the respondent authorities cannot disobey or refase to comply with the order passed by the High Court imtil and unless it is either modified or stayed by the superior Court. 13. Lookinginto the conduct ofthe respondents wherein it appears that the / respondents are deliberately not complying with the order dated 15.01.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4793/2005, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefrts flowing from the order dated 15.01.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4793/2005 within a period oftwo months from today. 14. Consequently, the review petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit