Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos. 3358-64 of 2011

K.C. Bajaj and others                                 …Appellants

Versus

Union of India and others                         …Respondents

WITH  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION   (C) NOS. 3367-3368 of 2011   

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION   (C) No. 6596 of 2011   

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION   (C) No. 6597 of 2011   

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION   (C)...CC NOS. 6086-6090 of 2012   

O  R  D  E  R

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Arguments in these cases were heard on various dates in 2012 and 2013 and  

the judgment was reserved on 7.5.2013.

2. In compliance of order dated 4.5.2012, the respondents filed an affidavit of  

Shri Manoj Kumar, Under Secretary/E(O)II, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways.  

After considering the affidavit and hearing further arguments,  the Court passed  

order dated 1.11.2012 and directed the learned Additional Solicitor General to  

1

Page 2

produce  the  file  before  the  Court  on  the  basis  of  which  clarification  dated  

29.10.1999 was issued.  

3. On 13.12.2012, learned counsel for the petitioners handed over xerox copy  

of the approval accorded by the Prime Minister under Rule 12 of the Government  

of  India  (Transaction  of  Business)  Rules,  1961  for  withdrawal  of  the  Office  

Memorandum issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare on  

29.10.1999.  After  perusing the  same,  the  Court  asked  the  learned  Additional  

Solicitor General to ensure production of the file in which the decision of the Prime  

Minister was recorded.  

4. On 11.4.2013, the Court passed the following order:

“Further arguments heard, which remained inconclusive.

The  file  produced  by  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  contains  different  opinions  recorded  by  the  learned  Attorney  General.  In  the  last  opinion recorded  in  2007,  the  learned Attorney General noted that the files produced before  him do not contain formal notification for withdrawal of O.M.  dated 29.10.1999.

However,  from the judgment of this Court in Col.  B.J.  Akkara (Retired) v. Government of India and others (2006) 11  SCC 709 which was decided on 10.10.2006, it is borne out that  an affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 1.8.2006  stating  therein  that  Circular  dated  29.10.1999  had  been  withdrawn in regard to the Civilian Medical Officers who were  petitioners in the writ petition filed by Dr. K.C. Garg and others.  It is also borne out from paragraph 23 of the judgment that the  Court  deciding the  matter  had  been  informed that  the  order  passed by the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 7322, 7826 and  7878 of 2001 Dr. K.C. Garg and others v. Union of India and  others had not been challenged by the Union of India and the  directions  contained  in  the  High  Court’s  order  had  been  implemented.

2

Page 3

All  this,  prima facie,  shows  that  the  parties  appearing  before the Court had not placed the facts in a correct perspective  and apparently misleading statement was made in the affidavit  filed on behalf of the respondents that O.M. dated 29.10.1999  had been withdrawn in respect of the petitioners in K.C. Garg’s  case.

The learned Additional Solicitor General should instruct  his assisting counsel to ensure that an affidavit of a senior officer  of  the  rank  of  Joint  Secretary  to  the  Government  is  filed  clarifying the stand of the Government. In the affidavit it should  also be indicated as to what steps were taken for compliance of  the direction given by the Prime Minister under Rule 12 of the  Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. The  required affidavit be filed within two weeks.

For further hearing, the cases be listed on 01.05.2013.”

5. Thereafter, the learned Additional Solicitor General filed an affidavit dated  

25.4.2013 of Ms. Vandana Sharma, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public  

Grievances and Pensions.

6. On 2.5.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the affidavit of  

Ms. Vandana Sharma and pointed out that the statements contained in paragraphs  

23 and 24 of the judgment of this Court in Col. B.J.  Akkara v. Union of India  

(2006)  11  SCC 709 are  factually incorrect.  Thereupon,  the  learned Additional  

Solicitor  General sought adjournment to  assist  the Court  in the context  of  the  

discrepancies appearing in the judgment.  

7. On 7.5.2013,  the Court  heard the remaining arguments and reserved the  

judgment. While doing so,  the Court  gave liberty to  the parties  to  file written  

submissions within two weeks.

3

Page 4

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed written submissions on 16.5.2013  

and learned counsel for the respondents filed written submissions on 23.5.2013. A  

perusal of the written submissions reveal that both the parties have relied upon  

additional facts which either do not find reference in the pleadings of the special  

leave petitions or which were not highlighted during the course of hearing.  

9. At page 2  of the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner a  

reference has been made to the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997  

and it has been stated that the petitioners had opted for the revised pay-scale and  

their  pay  was,  accordingly,  revised  with effect  from 1.1.1996.  If  correct,  this  

statement would change the complexion of the case.  

10. Similarly, in paragraph 23 of the written submissions filed on behalf of the  

respondent reference has been made to Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos.  833, 857-

863, 865 and 869/2002 – Government of India and others v. P.V. Ramanaiah and  

others  and it  has  been averred that  the factum of withdrawal of special  leave  

petitions filed in the case of Dr. K.C. Garg and others was brought to the notice of  

the Court. This fact does not find mention in the pleadings of the respondents or  

the affidavit of Ms. Vandana Sharma.  

11. In view of the above, we feel that it would be necessary to hear further

4

Page 5

arguments in the context of the written submissions filed by the parties.  

12. Let the cases be listed on 19.7.2013  for further arguments.

     ......………………………..….J.        [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi,                 ...….……..…..………………..J. July 2, 2013.                  [KURIAN JOSEPH]   

5

Page 6

6