Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Chandra Sekhar Pandey on 23 July, 2020
Author: N.S. Dhanik
Bench: Ravi Malimath, N.S. Dhanik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Stay Application No. 5230 of 2020
In
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 169 of 2020
State of Uttarakhand
& others. ............Petitioners.
Versus
Chandra Sekhar Pandey .........Respondent
Present:
Shri A.K. Bisht, learned standing counsel for the State/ petitioners.
Shri Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravi Malimath.J.
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Hon'ble Ravi Malimath, J. (Oral)
1. Heard Shri A.K. Bisht, learned standing counsel for the State /petitioners and Shri Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the tribunal has committed an error in allowing the claim petition of the respondent and setting aside the order of punishment. It has also committed an error by directing the petitioners to consider the claim of respondent afresh, including grant of ACP and promotion etc. If the same is to be done, the petitioners shall suffer undue loss and hardship. On various grounds, the tribunal has committed error.
3. The same is disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that irrespective of the various 2 defences he has towards the impugned order, the fact on record would indicate that subsequent to the dismissal order passed by the appellate authority namely the impugned order dated 28.03.2018, the respondent has been promoted on 11.09.2019, therefore, there is no need to grant any interim relief.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that since this writ petition is filed challenging the order of the tribunal, the same requires to be reconsidered on merits. However, so far as granting of an interim stay is concerned, we do not find that the petitioners have made out any ground for the same. Even after the passing of the impugned appellate order, the petitioners themselves have promoted the respondent. Having done so, they cannot now contend that subsequent ACP, promotions etc. will not be granted to the respondent. Hence, on this ground alone, the plea of the petitioners for an interim relief is dismissed. Stay application No. 5230 of 2020 is rejected.
5. Issue rule nisi.
6. Post for hearing in the usual course.
7. Respondent to file counter affidavit, if any, by the next date.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ravi Malimath, J.) 23.07.2020 SKS