HC directs Haryana Agricultural University to form special cells to curb unnecessary litigation
In a significant move to reduce the pendency of cases and prevent unnecessary litigation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for the creation of a dedicated cell at both university and department levels to scrutinise whether appeals being filed are already covered by existing court judgments.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta also made it clear that further appeals should not be entertained once a Division Bench had ruled on a particular statute or legal provision, and the judgment had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The assertions came as the court expressed disapproval of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University’s actions of filing appeals despite a clear precedent set by earlier judgments. The Bench asserted; “We deprecate the action of the university and hold that once a view relating to a particular statute or provisions of law has already been taken by a Division Bench, and the said judgment has also been tested at the level of the Supreme Court, no further appeals should be allowed to be filed by the authorities.”
The Bench was hearing two petitions filed by the agricultural varsity challenging an order dated July 2, 2024, passed by a Single Judge. Among other things, the Judge had ruled in favour of respondents- Assistant Professor K.C. Bishnoi and Ghanshyam Dass Sharma, entitling them to arrears of revised pension from 38 months prior to the filing of their petitions, along with six per cent annual interest from the due date until actual payment.
After hearing advocates Manu K. Bhandari and Arjun Sawhni for the respondents and the rival contentions, the Bench asserted the issue was no more “res integra” – a legal case or question that has not been decided or examined.
Referring to the earlier judgments, the Bench asserted the Single Judge did not commit folly in relying on the verdicts and “granting the benefit of qualifying service of four years and 22 days to Dr K.C. Bishnoi, and five years to Dr. Ghanshyam Dass Sharma respectively”.
Dismissing the appeals filed by the varsity, the Bench directed the immediate implementation of the Single Judge’s order without further delay. The Bench added: “Without further much ado, we dismiss the LPAs preferred by the university with directions to implement the order passed by the Single Judge at the earliest and without any further delay.”
Before parting with the order, the Bench directed: “A cell of responsible officers should be prepared at the level of the university as well as their departments to examine whether an appeal being preferred stands already covered by the judgment of the court. This would go a long way in reducing the pendency of cases and unnecessary litigation in the court.”