9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same relief which was turned down by this Court has been sought for in the review application. It is the case of the appellants that the High Court has passed the interim order of status quo which would entitle the respondent to enjoy the benefits of conditional promotion as well as benefit of three years of extra service to which he was not entitled to. 3. It is pointed out that the High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the appellants granting liberty to proceed with departmental inquiry in accordance with law. The respondent filed SLP(C) 4552-4533/2008 specifically praying to restrain the department from reverting the respondent from the post of DIG to the post of Additional DIG and consequently to the post of Commandant. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be noted that during the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out an order dated 29.9.2008 in M.P. No.1/2008 in Writ Petition no.23914/08 granting interim stay of the proceedings pursuant to the orders made in No.P/VII-2/2008 Pers-I dated 24.9.2008. The prayer was to permit the writ petitioner to continue to discharge his duties as DIG beyond 30.9.2008. It is submitted that ultimate relief prayed for has been granted by granting interim stay. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court was perfectly justified in passing the interim orders. 6. We find that the High Court by its first order observed as follow: 5. Mr. Anand Natarajan, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry proceedings to go on, however, with a direction to keep the final decision in abeyance till the disposal of the above review application, as otherwise the review application would become infructuous. 8. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the High Court could not have passed the interim order which virtually means allowing the review petition, without deciding the question of maintainability of the review petition. Such a course is not permissible in law. 9. We, therefore, dispose of these appeals with the following directions: (1) The High Court shall decide the question relating to maintainability of the review petition and then proceed to deal with it, if it is found that the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
