State of
U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Ors. [2009] INSC 1613 (18
September 2009)
Judgment
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6517 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.13319 of 2009) State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants VERSUS Sandeep Kumar
Balmiki & Ors. ...Respondents ORDER
1.
Leave granted 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
2.
This appeal by Special Leave is directed against an interim order
dated 23rd of October, 2008, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
Allahabad at Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in a special appeal being SLP (C) 75 of
2009, affirming an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court in a writ petition being W.P. No. 6516 (S/S) of 2008.
1 A writ
application has been filed by the respondents challenging the orders of
termination of their service before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
at Lucknow Bench at Lucknow. By an interim order, a learned Single Judge of the
High Court had stayed the order of termination of the respondents. An appeal
was carried by the State of UP against that interim order before a Division
Bench of the High Court, which, however, affirmed the interim order passed by
the learned Single Judge in the pending writ application but directed the learned
Single Judge to dispose of the pending writ application at an early date.
Feeling
aggrieved, the State of UP has filed this Special Leave Petition, which on
grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
We have
heard Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of UP and
Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
Having
heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and after considering the
impugned orders as well as the nature of relief claimed in the writ petition by
the respondents, we are of 2 the view that the High Court had fallen in grave
error in staying the order of termination during the pendency of the writ
petition. In our view, the interim order granted by the High Court staying the
order of termination could not be passed at this stage in view of the fact that
if such relief is granted at this stage, the writ petition shall stand
automatically allowed without permitting the parties to place their respective
cases at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. In this case also, the
appellants have not yet filed counter affidavit to the writ petition of the
respondents.
That
being the position and in view of the fact that the final relief could not be
granted at the interim stage, we set aside the impugned order and vacate the
interim order passed by the High Court.
We are
informed that now the affidavits have already been exchanged and the matter is
ready for hearing. That being the position, we request the learned Single Judge
of the High Court to decide the writ petition at an early date, preferably
within three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.
1.
2.
3.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The
appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
There
will be no order as to costs.
We make
it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the appeal, which shall be
gone into by the High Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition.
.......................................J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]
......................................J.
NEW DELHI:
Back
