Mukhiya Karyapalak Adhikari, U.P. Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board Karmit Anubhag, Lucknow & Anr. vs Santosh Kumar

MUKHIYA KARYAPALAK ADHIKARI, U.P. KHADI TATHA GRAMODYOG BOARD KARMIT ANUBHAG, LUCKNOW & ANR. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SANTOSH KUMAR Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties on this appeal who have taken us through the records.

The respondent was engaged on contract basis as a Peon on a

lumpsum salary of Rs. 2,500/- on 1.4.2003. Subsequently, an

order came to be passed against the respondent on 26.6.2004. By

the aforesaid order, the contract service of the respondent was

terminated w.e.f. 5.7.2004.

3. The respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of

termination filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court

which was registered as 28789 of 2004. In the said writ

petition filed by the respondent, a prayer was made for quashing

the order dated 26.6.2004 terminating the service of the

respondent. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ

petition passed an order on 28.7.2004 dismissing the said writ

petition holding that the engagement of the respondent on

contract basis did not vest on him any legal right to regular

appointment.

-2-

4. The High Court passed an order in the said appeal which

was filed in 2004 which was registered as Special Appeal No.

1066 of 2004. The appeal was listed before the Division Bench

nearly six years of passing of the order of the learned Single

Judge and the Division Bench passed the order for admitting the

appeal. But peculiarly enough the High Court passed an order

that the order dated 26.6.2004 passed by the appellant

terminating the service would remain stayed. It was also made

specific in that order that the respondent should be allowed to

continue to work.

5. We fail to understand as to how the Division Bench while

admitting an appeal could pass such an order so as to allow the

appeal itself even at that interim stage. The respondent was

not working when the suit was filed and his writ petition was

dismissed. Despite the said fact not only the Division bench

stayed the operation of the order after six years of filing the

appeal, but directed for allowing the respondent to continue to

work despite the fact that he was not working on that date.

6. Therefore, the aforesaid order passed by the Division

Bench is illegal, without jurisdiction and was passed without

any application of mind. We set aside the said order and remit

back the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for

disposal of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The order

dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench staying the order

dated 26.6.2004 and directing the appellant to allow the

-3-

respondent to continue to work stand quashed and would not

operate in any manner till the disposal of the appeal.

7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent in terms of

the aforesaid order.

...........................J. (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

...........................J. (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 08, 2011.