HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT: Petitioner WritAppeal (Pr) No.6156 of 2010 ^A &s° A° T.K.Jha Versus RESPONDENTS: The High Court of Chhattisgarh and another sy:sssSS •>':'-^rS5*S*s JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- DHIRENDRA MISHRA HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J Q-t-^e-o- tf Sd/- R.N.Cbandrakar ;e PQST FOR JUDGMENT ON J^ -12-2010 Sd/- ,. DSyrendraMteb" Judge mss& >•*'•"'•*" l(i!l.\ ::^"^v i:|i^|)'iia|| S&r ^:L?:i^iS£; S'^^^^^;, H> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal (Pr) No.6156 of 2010 ^fV &so fio APPELLANT: Petitioner RESPONDENTS: T.K. Jha, S/o late Shri S.D. Jha, aged about 55 years, District & Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) (CG) Versus The High Court of Chhattisgarh, through Registrar General, the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary (Law), DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondent No.2. ;t!'"'?Kaa>, Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. JUDGMENT ,^ (Delivered on }S' 'December, 2010) The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. The appellant is member of Higher Judicial Service. He was granted selection grade in June, 1999. The appellant filed a writ petition for quashment of coriimunication dated 9 July, 2010 whereby he has been informed regarding rejection ofhis representations dated 3-3-2010, 5-3-2010 and 25-4-2010 by the High Court. 2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant has also prayed for grant of super time scale w.e.f. 30t March, 2005 as he became due and entitled for the .«8, \ !>•. •':''a':."~ •—,--1' .:/ ^:^s asi l"a';tlS same on that date. In the said petition, the appellant has filed an application for interim relief and prayed for staying elevation of the officers of super time scale till final dedsion of the case. 3 The interim application preferred by the appellant has been rejected by the impugned order with the followirtg observations:- "Admittedly, the petitioner is not an officer of Super Time Scale and it is not a case of super-session in any manner on the basis of inter-se merits in the officers of the Super Time Scale, therefore, the petitioner has no prima facie case for grant of relief of the nature claimed by the petitioner in his interim application. Had the petitioner been an officer of Super Time Scale and the persons junior to the petitioner in the Super Time Scale would have been recommended for elevation, then the situation would have been different but this is not the case of the petitioner. We note that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the resolution of the Full Court dated 25.3.2009 in this writ petition. Merely on the ground of allegations of non-consideration or allegations of a wrong decision in the matter of grant of Super Time Scale to the petitioner, the entire process of further elevation in the High Court cannot be stayed." 4. The instant writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act of 2006') is directed against the impugned order. / 5. The matter was listed on default, as the office has pointed out that writ appeal is directed against the interim order dated 21-9-2010 passed in Writ Petition (S)No.3948/2010. J-^ b^ 6. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the writ petition for grant of super time scale w.e.f. 30 March, 2005 is pending. The appellant apprehending that the names of such judicial officers, who are junior to the appellant and who have been granted super time scale in preference to the appellant, may be considered for elevation, prayed for staying the elevation of the officers from super time scale till the final decision of the case. However, his applicatioh has been rejected by the impugned order. Denial of interim relief of the nature has the effect of denial to the appellant of his right to be considered for elevation and as such, final in nature and, therefore, the writ appeal against the impugned order is maintainable and the bar contained in proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006 would not be applicable in the facts ofthe present case. 7. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would argue that the writ petitioh is only for grant of super time scale w.e.f. 30 March, 2005. The elevation of the judicial officers as Judges ofthe High Court is not at all subject matter ofthe tvrit petition, as no final relief to that effect has been prayed by the petitioner in the writ petition and, therefore, no any application for interim relief as prayed for could be made. That apart, the appellant's case for grant of super time scale was considered by the htigh Court in the Full Court meeting dated 25.3.2009 and he was not found fit for grant of super time scale and in these circumstances, learned Single Judge keeping in view the above aspect has prima facie arriyed at a conclusion that the appellant does not have any good ground for grant of interim relief. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. ^ itfl&a >;^-rS: ;!^ --sai@—— •7~-~"^'-<taS^ 9. Admittedly, the appellant in the writ petition has prayed for grant of super time scale w.e.f. 30 March, 2005 on the ground that there was a vacancy of the post of judicial officer super time scale on that date and the appellant was entitled for consideration for grant of super time scale on that date, however, his case was not considered. With these circumstances, a direction has been sought against the High Court for grant of super time scale from that date. lO.Thus, considering the issue involved.in this appeal and further considering the grounds on which interim application has been rejected by the impugned order and also keeping in view the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006 which specifically bars appeal against interlocutory order, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the instant appeal is not maintainable, as the same is directed against interlocutory order passed in the writ petition. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ::?;:li^S:i?S1^^ 3arve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge