Jagpal Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31526 OF 2017

JAGPAL SINGH …PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Shri Parthiv K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Tanmaya Agarwal, learned counsel for the

respondents were heard on merits.

2. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 04.09.2017

Signature Not Verified passed by the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra

Special Appeal was allowed after setting aside the judgment Date: 2023.08.29 18:50:05 IST Reason:

1

and order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2012

allowing the Writ Petition No.25718 of 2011.

3. The result of the impugned order is that the services of the

petitioner who was appointed as the temporary Collection Peon

stood terminated, notwithstanding, the subsequent promotion

earned by him on the post of Collection Amin on the strength

of his continued working under the interim order passed by

the High Court.

4. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Collection Peon

on 01.02.1996. The appointment letter clearly stated that the

services of the petitioner were purely temporary and that he

could be removed without any notice. The services of the

petitioner as temporary Collection Peon were terminated

simpliciter vide order dated 30.11.1998 with one month’s

notice and salary & allowances.

5. Aggrieved by the termination of his services, petitioner filed a

Writ Petition No.42216 of 1998 (Jagpal Singh vs. District

Magistrate, Etawah and others). The said Writ Petition was

2 dismissed on 15.07.1999 by the learned Single Judge in limine

with the observation that since the petitioner is purely a

temporary appointee, as is evident from his appointment

letter, he has no right to the post.

6. Not satisfied by the above decision, petitioner preferred Letters

Patent Appeal i.e. Special Appeal No.740 of 1999 and obtained

an interim order on 19.08.1999 staying the operation of the

order of termination of his services. The petitioner, on the

strength of the aforesaid order, continued to function as

temporary Collection Peon. In view of his continued service,

ignoring the fact that his services actually stood terminated

and that he was working only under an interim order, the

petitioner was promoted on 05.10.2009 on the post of

Collection Amin by the District Selection Committee. The

Special Appeal was unfortunately dismissed in default on

25.08.2009. Consequent to the dismissal of the Special

Appeal, a detailed order was passed by the Sub­Divisional

Magistrate, Bharthana, on 01.03.2011 notifying that as the

services of the petitioner had been terminated and the said

3 order has attained finality with the dismissal of the Special

Appeal, consequently the promotion of the petitioner was

meaningless. Accordingly, petitioner stood reverted to the post

of Collection Peon and his service also stood determined as

earlier.

7. It may not be out of context to mention here that the petitioner

after the dismissal of the Special Appeal, for want of

prosecution, applied for recall of the order and the Special

Appeal was restored on 11.03.2011 but again it was got

dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.04.2011. In short,

the Special Appeal arising from the Writ Petition challenging

the termination of the petitioner stood finally dismissed with

no relief to the petitioner. The services of the petitioner as

temporary Collection Peon accordingly stood determined as far

back as on 30.11.1998 which order became final and

conclusive.

8. Consequent to the order of the Sub­Divisional Magistrate

dated 01.03.2011 notifying termination of the services of the

petitioner in the wake of the earlier termination order

4 becoming final, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.25718 of 2011

challenging the same. The said Writ Petition was allowed by

the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated

31.10.2012 observing that the promotion granted to the

petitioner was not hedged by any condition, therefore, once the

petitioner had been promoted from the temporary post of

Collection Peon to the post of Collection Amin, his services

were not liable to be treated as determined.

9. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge was assailed

by the State of UP & others by means of Special Appeal

Defective No.392 of 2013 and the same has been allowed by

the order impugned dated 04.09.2017 on the ground that the

learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the

continuance of the petitioner as temporary Collection Peon

and his consequential promotion as Collection Amin was only

on the basis of the interim order operating in the Special

Appeal though the services of the petitioner stood terminated.

The court further observed that once the services of the

petitioner stood terminated on 30.11.1998 and the Writ

5 Petition challenging the same had been dismissed as also the

Special Appeal thereof, the petitioner went out of service and

the very continuance of service of the petitioner on the

strength of interim order which merged in the final order of

dismissal of Special Appeal, lost all significance.

10. The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner

Shri Parthiv K. Goswami is that the person who has continued

for so long, may be in view of the interim order operating in his

favour, cannot be thrown out in a cursory manner when a

conscious decision had been taken to promote him as

Collection Amin. Defending the impugned order, Shri Tanmaya

Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents had submitted

that once the very foundation on which the petitioner was

working had gone, his continuance in service and

consequential promotion is of no effect. The petitioner has no

right to continue in service either as Collection Amin or as

temporary Collection Peon after his termination was held to be

valid and was not interfered with by the courts.

6

11. The facts, as narrated above, clearly establish that the

petitioner was appointed simply as a temporary Collection

Peon and his services were determined simpliciter within three

years vide order dated 30.11.1998. The said order, terminating

the services of the petitioner, is final and conclusive. It has not

been disturbed by any court of law. However, the petitioner

continued to function as temporary Collection Peon on the

strength of an interim order passed in Special Appeal which

was ultimately dismissed. Therefore, any promotion given to

the petitioner consequent to his continuance in service on the

strength of the interim order would automatically fall to the

ground once the Special Leave Petition is dismissed and the

termination order attains finality.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the

opinion that the view expressed by the Division Bench of the

High Court in allowing the appeal, is well within the four

corners of law which order does not suffer from any material

illegality or irregularity. The Division Bench has rightly set

aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge

7 dated 31.10.2012 by which the writ petition was allowed in

complete ignorance of the fact that the services of the

petitioner stood determined long back and that the petitioner

is not entitled to any benefit on the basis of his subsequent

promotion which automatically falls with the termination

attaining finality. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Special

Leave Petition and the same is dismissed, however, the

respondents shall not initiate any recovery of the salary drawn

by the petitioner for the period he has actually worked.

……………………….. J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

……………………….. J.

(PANKAJ MITHAL) NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 29, 2023.

8