BHANKRA BYAS MANAGING BOARDversusSURESH AND ANR.

                                (2009] 8 S.C.R. 109
>


                     BHANKRA BYAS MANAGING BOARD                            A
                                      v.
                              SURESH AND ANR.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 3237 of 2009)
                                   MAY 5, 2009
                                                                            B
                [TARUN CHATIERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]
    \
               lntrim Order :

                 High Court while admitting the second appeal, granting     c
           final relief by directing the department to give compassionate
           appointment to the aP.plicant - Held: High Court was not
          justified in granting such an interim order at the admission
          stage - Interim order of High Court set aside - Second
    ...   appeal directed to be decided expeditiously in accordance         D
          with law.

               Respondent No. 1 applied for compassionate
          appointment claiming himself to be adopted son of the
          deceased employee. He filed a suit for declaration that he
          was the legal heir of the deceased employee. The suit was         E
          decreed against the appellant and the decree was
          affirmed by the first appellant court. By an interim order
          in the second appeal, the High Court directed the
          appellant to appoint respondent No. 1. Aggrieved the
          department file the appeal.                                       F

              Allowing the appeal, the Court

              HELD: The High Court, while admitting the appeal
          preferred by the appellant has granted final relief to
    r     respondent No, 1 by directing the appellant to give               G
          compassionate appointment to him. The High Court was
          not justified in granting such interim order at the
          admission stage. It is an admitted position that the

                                       109                                  H
      110       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2009] 8 S.C.R.

  A second appeal was admitted for final disposal.
     Accordingly, the interim order granted by the High Court
     is set aside. The High Court is directed to decide the
     pending second appeal expeditiously in accordance with
     law after giving proper hearing to the parties. [Para 2 and
  B 3) [110-E-G; 111-A-C]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
     3237 of 2009.                                                      •

        From the Judgment & Order dated 3.4.2008 of the High
  C Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second
    Appeal No. 2865 of 2007 (O&M).

         Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Mohit Abraham, T.S.
     Sabarish and K.L. Mehta & Co. for the Appellant.
 D       Dipak Kumar Jena, Minakshi Ghose Jena, Humayun Sahu
     and Sushi! Thakur for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

 E          TRAUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
         2. This appeal is preferred against an ir.terim order dated
    3rd of April, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
    Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 2865
    of 2007 whereby the High Court, while admitting the appeal
  F preferred by the appellant, has granted final relief to the
    respondent No. 1 by directing the appellant to give
    compassionate appointment to him. In our view, the High Court
    was not justified in granting such interim order at the admission
    stage. It is an admitted position that the second appeal was
· G admitted for final disposal. A suit was filed by the respondent
    No.1 for declaration that he was a legal heir of the deceased
    employee of the appellant being his adopted son. The said suit,
    however, was decreed and affirmed by the first appellate court          1
    against which the appellant has filed the second appeal in the          '
  H High Court which is pending. Although a decree has been
      BHANKRA BYAS MANAGING BOARD v. SURESH 111
           AND ANR. [TARUN CHAITERJEE, J.]
;.
     passed against the appellant, but in the interim stage of the A
     second appeal, the appellant could not be directed to appoint
     the respondent No.1, if on the statement of the respondent No.1
     he was ready to forego the past benefit if he was taken in
     service. Accordingly, the interim order granted by the High Court
     is set aside. The High Court is directed to decide the pending B
     second appeal within six months from the date of supply of a
     copy of this order to it.

          3. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits
     of the second appeal which shall be decided by the High Court
     in accordance with law after giving proper hearing to the parties. C

         4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no
     order as to costs.

     R.P.                                      Appeal disposed of.     D