Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand And Others ... vs Harpal Singh Yadav on 22 April, 2019
Author: N.S. Dhanik
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, N.S. Dhanik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 223 of 2019
With
Delay Condonation Application No. 3616 of 2019
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Harpal Singh Yadav ...Respondent
Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Dinesh Chandra
Gahatori, learned counsel for the respondent.
Dated: 22nd, April, 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 584 of 2017 dated 04.12.2017 wherein the submission of learned Standing Counsel for the State was recorded that the arrears of salary and pension, as admitted to the respondent-writ petitioner, would be paid to him no sooner the budget was allocated, and the funds were released to the Deputy Education Officer, Bahadrabad.
2. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the parties, and disposed of the writ petition directing respondent nos. 2 to 5 to release the pension and arrears of salary to the respondent-writ petitioner, as admitted to him, within eight weeks from the date of the order.
3. Aggrieved thereby, Review Application No. 888 of 2018 was filed by the State Government, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25.10.2018 holding that there 2 was no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal.
4. It is disconcerting to note that, while it is conceded before the learned Single Judge that retiral dues of the respondent-writ petitioner would be paid no sooner the budget was allocated, and the funds were released to the Deputy Education Officer, Bahadrabad, the State has now chosen to prefer an appeal against the consent order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. An intra-Court appeal would lie only if there is a patent illegality in the order under appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge is merely an order recording the consent of the State Government to make payment as soon as the budget is sanctioned. No Appeal would lie against a consent order. The present appeal is, evidently, an abuse of the process of Court.
6. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to dismiss this Special Appeal with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- which the State Government shall pay to the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 22.04.2019 22.04.2019 Shiksha