Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. ... vs Dr. Raghvendra Bahadur Singh & Anr. ... on 20 August, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 127 of 2016 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.,Horticulture & Food Processin Respondent :- Dr. Raghvendra Bahadur Singh & Anr. (Inre 3695 S/S 2002) Counsel for Appellant :- Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- Y.K. Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Sharin, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellant on C.M.Application No.31576 of 2016 as well as on the appeal.
Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is sufficient.
Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The C.M. Application No.31576 of 2016 for condoning the delay is allowed.
This special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed against the Judgement and Order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Writ Court in Service Single No 3695 of 2002 (Dr. Raghvendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the learned Writ Court relying upon the order dated 22.05.2015 passed in Writ-A No. 3636 of 2005 has observed that there is no reason as to why not be the same benefits be not extended to the writ-petitioners, therefore, disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ-petitioner in terms of the order dated 22.05.2015 and directed the respondents to proceed as per time schedule indicated in the judgement dated 22.05.2015.
Learned counsel for the State-appellants has drawn our attention to the order dated 19.07.2017 passed in Special Appeal No. 476 of 2016 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and 14 others) and has submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has set aside the order dated 22.05.2015 passed in Writ A No. 3636 of 2005, restored the writ petition to its original and further directed the learned Writ Court to decide the writ petition in the light of observations made in Special Appeal No. 476 of 2016 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and 14 others). The order dated 19.07.2017 reads as under:-
"The judgment of the learned Single Judge giving rise to the instant special appeal reads as under:-
"Allowed.
For orders see my order of date passed in Writ A No. 3636 of 2005 (Jagdish Narayan Doharey Vs. State of U.P. & others)"
It will be seen that the learned Single Judge has solely relied upon the judgement of the writ court in Jagdish Narayan Doharey (Supra). It is admitted between the parties that the judgment in the case of Jagdish Narayan Dohrey proceeded on a concession made on behalf of the parties including the State of U.P. in respect of the employees of police department only. Such concession had not been made in respect of the employees of other departments including the Horticulture Department where the writ petitioners/respondents were admittedly working.
The learned Standing Counsel also appears to be justified in pointing out that so far as the other departments are concerned, the policy decision of the State Government in the matter of allocation on transfer of employees interse between the State of U.P. and the State of Uttrakhand under the provisions of U.P. Reorganization Act,2000, was controlled by the policy decision, which has been completely lost sight of by the learned Single Judge.
For the aforesaid reasons, the judgement of the learned Single Judge under challenge in these appeals cannot be legally sustained and is hereby set aside. The writ petitions are restored to its original number. Let the writ petitions be decided afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
The special appeals are allowed."
In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, so also the fact that the order dated 22.05.2015 passed in Writ-A No. 3636 of 2005 has been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the learned Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh, therefore, we set aside the impugned Judgement and Order dated 31.08.2015, the writ petition is restored to its original number and the matter is remitted to the learned Writ Court to decide the same afresh in the light of observations made in order dated 19.07.2017 passed in Special Appeal No. 476 of 2016 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and 14 others) and connected appeal.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
It goes without saying that the interim order dated 25.07.2002 passed earlier in the writ petitions shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition finally.
[Jaspreet Singh,J.] [Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.] Order Date :- 20.8.2019 S.Ali