Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Narendra Kumar Jain & Another on 16 December, 2013
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 395 of 2013
With
Delay Condonation Application No. 11491 of 2013
Stay Application No. 11492 of 2013
State of Uttarakhand & others. ........... Appellants
Versus
Narendra Kumar Jain & another. ............ Respondents
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / appellants.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for respondent No. 2.
Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
There has been 14 days' delay in preferring this appeal. An Application for condonation of delay has been filed. Twice time was granted for filing objection to the Application for condonation of delay. No objection has been filed. We have considered the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons for the delay, allow the Application.
2. Admit.
3. Stay. We are granting the stay, inasmuch as, the reason for termination was acceptance of the logic propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Alok Sharma & others, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 647, and the respondent / writ petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition that the said judgment had no application insofar as the respondent / writ petitioner is concerned; but the learned Judge proceeded to record "even if the respondents chose to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of the petitioner and thereby dispense with his services they can do so, but only in accordance with law which means that a prior notice or show cause must be given to the petitioner. It is primarily on the non 2 compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play that the validity of the impugned order dated 15.03.2012 cannot be sustained." The learned Judge has also recorded a finding that a show-cause was given, where also it was indicated that the show-cause is being issued in view of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; to that, a reply was given and, thereby, a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was requested to be furnished; and, without furnishing the same, the termination order was passed. The fact remains that the respondent / writ petitioner, when approached the writ court, he contended that the said judgment does not apply to him.
4. The Stay Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.)
16.12.2013 16.12.2013
G