State Of U.P. & Ors vs Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Ors

1 A writ application has been filed by the respondents

challenging the orders of termination of their service before the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench at

Lucknow. By an interim order, a learned Single Judge of the

High Court had stayed the order of termination of the

respondents. An appeal was carried by the State of UP against

that interim order before a Division Bench of the High Court,

which, however, affirmed the interim order passed by the

learned Single Judge in the pending writ application but

directed the learned Single Judge to dispose of the pending

writ application at an early date.

Feeling aggrieved, the State of UP has filed this Special

Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence

of the learned counsel for the parties.

We have heard Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel

appearing for the State of UP and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and

after considering the impugned orders as well as the nature of

relief claimed in the writ petition by the respondents, we are of

2 the view that the High Court had fallen in grave error in

staying the order of termination during the pendency of the

writ petition. In our view, the interim order granted by the

High Court staying the order of termination could not be

passed at this stage in view of the fact that if such relief is

granted at this stage, the writ petition shall stand

automatically allowed without permitting the parties to place

their respective cases at the time of final hearing of the writ

petition. In this case also, the appellants have not yet filed

counter affidavit to the writ petition of the respondents.

That being the position and in view of the fact that the

final relief could not be granted at the interim stage, we set

aside the impugned order and vacate the interim order passed

by the High Court.

We are informed that now the affidavits have already

been exchanged and the matter is ready for hearing. That

being the position, we request the learned Single Judge of the

High Court to decide the writ petition at an early date,

preferably within three months from the date of supply of a

copy of this order to it.

3 For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set

aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

There will be no order as to costs.

We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of

the appeal, which shall be gone into by the High Court at the

time of disposal of the writ petition.

.......................................J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

NEW DELHI: ......................................J. September 18, 2009 [ R.M. LODHA ]

4