Dileep Kumar Pandey vs. Union Of India
AI Summary
This Supreme Court order addresses a Special Leave Petition concerning a service matter, highlighting a conflict between judgments of the Allahabad High Court. The Court has issued notice to the respondents, signifying a deeper legal examination of the conflicting precedents. This case involves critical questions of service law and judicial consistency.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The present Special Leave Petition was filed against a judgment and order dated July 12, 2010, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Supreme Court identified a conflict between this impugned judgment and an earlier judgment of another Division Bench of the same High Court, specifically 'Sanjai Kumar Sharma vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others', reported in 2006 (7) ADJ 322. Consequently, the Supreme Court decided to issue notice to the respondents.
Timeline of Events
Previous judgment in Sanjai Kumar Sharma v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others delivered by Allahabad High Court.
Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Filing of the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court hears the petition and issues notice due to conflicting judgments.
Key Factual Findings
There is a conflict between the impugned judgment and the previous judgment of another Division Bench of the same court reported in 2006 (7) ADJ 322 [Sanjai Kumar Sharma vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others].
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
Not explicitly detailed in this order, but implied that the petitioner is arguing against the High Court's judgment, likely emphasizing the conflict with an earlier Division Bench decision to seek a review or reversal.
Respondent's Arguments
Not explicitly detailed in this order, but implied that the respondents would defend the High Court's judgment.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court issued notice due to an apparent conflict between the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court and a previous judgment by another Division Bench of the same court. This indicates the Court acknowledges a prima facie need to resolve this inconsistency to ensure legal certainty and consistency.
- Emphasis on Judicial Consistency
- Commitment to Resolving Legal Conflicts
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Issue notice returnable in four weeks.
- 2.Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Procedural)
This is a procedural order to issue notice; however, the recognition of conflicting judgments carries persuasive weight for future cases involving similar inconsistencies, indicating a path for higher court intervention.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Text
| S U P R E M E | C O U R T<br>O F<br>I N D I A<br>RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS |
|---|---|
| Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).7641/2011 | |
| (From the judgement and order dated 12/07/2010 in<br>1074/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) | SA<br>No. |
| DILEEP KUMAR PANDEY | Petitioner(s) |
| VERSUS | |
| UNION OF INDIA & ORS. | Respondent(s) |
| office report) | (With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and |
| Date: 01/04/2011 | This Petition was called on for hearing today. |
| CORAM :<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK | |
| For Petitioner(s)<br>Mr.<br>Mr.<br>Mr.<br>Mr. | V. Giri,Sr.Adv.<br>Anand Singh,Adv.<br>Santhanam Swaminadhan,Adv.<br>Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv. |
| For Respondent(s) |
ÐITEM NO.18 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Issue notice returnable in four weeks, in view of the fact that there is a conflict between the impugned judgment and the previous judgment of another Division Bench of the same court reported in 2006 (7)ADJ 322 [Sanjai Kumar Sharma vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others].
Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
(O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi) Court Master Court Master
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order