Mukhiya Karyapalak
Adhikari, U.P. Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Boardkarmit Anubhag, Lucknow & ANR. Vs.
Santosh Kumar
O R D E R
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
We
have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on this appeal who have
taken us through the records. The respondent was engaged on contract basis as a
Peon on a lumpsum salary of Rs. 2,500/- on 1.4.2003. Subsequently, an order came
to be passed against the respondent on 26.6.2004. By the aforesaid order, the
contract service of the respondent was terminated w.e.f. 5.7.2004.
3.
The
respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination filed a writ petition
in the Allahabad High Court which was registered as 28789 of 2004. In the said writ
petition filed by the respondent, a prayer was made for quashing the order dated
26.6.2004 terminating the service of the respondent. The learned Single Judge who
heard the writ petition passed an order on 28.7.2004 dismissing the said writ petition
holding that the engagement of the respondent on contract basis did not vest on
him any legal right to regular appointment.
4.
The
High Court passed an order in the said appeal which was filed in 2004 which was
registered as Special Appeal No. 1066 of 2004. The appeal was listed before the
Division Bench nearly six years of passing of the order of the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench passed the order for admitting the appeal. But peculiarly
enough the High Court passed an order that the order dated 26.6.2004 passed by the
appellant terminating the service would remain stayed. It was also made specific
in that order that the respondent should be allowed to continue to work.
5.
We
fail to understand as to how the Division Bench while admitting an appeal could
pass such an order so as to allow the appeal itself even at that interim stage.
The respondent was not working when the suit was filed and his writ petition was
dismissed. Despite the said fact not only the Division bench stayed the
operation of the order after six years of filing the appeal, but directed for
allowing the respondent to continue to work despite the fact that he was not
working on that date.
6.
Therefore,
the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench is illegal, without jurisdiction
and was passed without any application of mind. We set aside the said order and
remit back the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for disposal of the
appeal as expeditiously as possible. The order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Division
Bench staying the order dated 26.6.2004 and directing the appellant to allow
the respondent to continue to work stand quashed and would not operate in any
manner till the disposal of the appeal.
7.
The
appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent in terms of the aforesaid order.
...........................J.
(DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
...........................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
NEW
DELHI
SEPTEMBER
08, 2011.
Back
Pages: 1 2
