Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 4 Others vs Pramod Kumar Singh And 3 Others on 19 September, 2022
Author: Manoj Misra
Bench: Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 425 of 2022 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Respondent :- Pramod Kumar Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Nand Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application Cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient.
Delay is condoned.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
Let a regular number be given to this appeal.
Order on Appeal We have heard Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
This intra-court appeal questions an interim order dated 20.4.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.5182 of 2022 by which the effect and operation of the order dated 9.3.2022 cancelling the appointment and the order dated 15.3.2022 terminating the service of writ petitioner has been stayed.
Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that the order of cancellation of appointment has been passed on the ground that the degree set up by the writ petitioner was not verifiable from the records. It has also been submitted that the writ petitioner had retired from service on 31.3.2022 i.e. before the date of the interim order therefore, there was no ground to stay the order impugned in the writ petition. It has also been submitted that the order staying the cancellation of appointment records no reason for the stay.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent no.4), submits that, firstly, the order impugned in the writ petition is without jurisdiction and, secondly, the appointment cancelled is of the year 1994, therefore, there was no justification to cancel the appointment at such a belated stage. He also submits that the degree was found not verifiable only because of difference in father's name which could be on account of a technical mistake. He, however, does not dispute that the writ petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2022.
Without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the rival contentions, we are of the view that since the writ petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2022 and the parties had already exchanged their affidavits in the proceedings before the writ court, there was no justifiable ground to stay the effect and operation of the cancellation order as well as consequential termination particularly, when the matter itself could have been decided finally. More so, the interim order records no reason for staying the effect and operation of the orders impugned in the writ petition.
We, therefore, set aside the interim order dated 20.4.2022 to the extent it stays the effect and operation of the order dated 9.3.2022 cancelling the appointment and the order dated 15.3.2022 terminating the service of writ petitioner with a request to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties.
The appeal stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 19.9.2022 piyush