Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 42 (UTT)

Union Of India v. Shashi Bhusan Pandey

2023-01-09

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The Union of India, and its officers, have preferred the Special Appeal to assail the orders dated 29.03.2017 and 01.06.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 486 of 2017, 'Shashi Bhushan Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others'. The impugned orders are short, and they are reproduced herein below:- Order dated 29.03.2017 'Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the Union of India. Petitioner was appointed as a temporary Clerk/Computer Operator on 18.02.2004 and his services were terminated orally on 10.02.2017. According to the petitioner, no notice has ever been issued before terminating his services. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith as temporary Clerk/Computer Operator till further orders of this Court. Respondents are also directed to release the due and admissible salary to the petitioner. Let counter affidavit be filed in the matter within four weeks. List thereafter.' Order dated 01.06.2017 'Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the Union of India/respondents. Heard on the stay vacation application. No case made out by the respondents for vacating the interim order. Interim order dated 29.03.2017 is confirmed.' 2. The respondent preferred the aforesaid Writ Petition with a plea that he had been serving with respondent no.4-Garrison Engineer, Military Engineer Services, Mall Road, Dehradun, Cantonment, Uttarakhand, on temporary basis, as a Clerk/Computer Operator since 18.02.2004. He claimed that he had worked continuously in the said organization up to 10.02.2017. He also claimed that he was paid monthly consolidated amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month, in cash. 3. Even though no appointment letter was issued to him, he sought to place reliance on experience certificates issued to him by respondent no.4 for the period 18.02.2004 till 12.01.2009, and to certain gate passes issued to him, as well as identity card issued to him by the respondents. He claimed that he had served continuously for a period of 13 years with respondent no.4. 4. Upon a representation being made by the respondent-writ petitioner for regularization, the respondents have terminated his services verbally. He, therefore, sought a mandamus to respondent no.4 to reinstate him forthwith. The first impugned order dated 29.03.2017 was passed by the learned Single Judge on the very first day of listing of the Writ Petition. 4. Upon a representation being made by the respondent-writ petitioner for regularization, the respondents have terminated his services verbally. He, therefore, sought a mandamus to respondent no.4 to reinstate him forthwith. The first impugned order dated 29.03.2017 was passed by the learned Single Judge on the very first day of listing of the Writ Petition. Obviously, no counter affidavit was called for from the respondents by then, and none was on record. Virtually the final relief prayed for in the Writ Petition was granted on the very first day, without having the respondents' stand on record. The respondent-writ petitioner then filed the counter affidavit, and moved an application for vacation of the interim order dated 29.03.2017, which has been rejected by the second impugned order dated 01.06.2017. 5. A perusal of the second impugned order shows that the same does not record, much less deal with the stand of the respondents. All that is observed is that no case is made out by the respondents for vacating the interim order. 6. We have heard learned counsels, and perused the record. 7. We completely disapprove of the manner, in which, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the first order. We are governed by the rule of law, and like any other person or authority, we are equally bound by the rule of law. It is well settled that interim relief in service matters, which is in the nature of the final relief, should normally not be granted. Grant of such interim relief, which tantamounts to final relief, without even calling for a reply from the respondents, is even more unacceptable. On this short ground, the order dated 29.03.2017 is liable to be set aside, and we, accordingly, set aside the same. 8. The second impugned order dated 01.06.2017 can also not be sustained, since the same has been passed without recording any reasons. Moreover, since the first order does not survive, the consideration of legality of the second order does not really survive, and the same has become academic. We, accordingly, allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned orders. 9. The writ petition is still pending consideration. The learned Single Judge dealing with the matter shall decide the writ petition on its own merits, without being influenced by this order.