Judgment

VENKATACHALA, J. - Leave granted.

2. Respondent who was in the service of the U.P. Government as an Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Banda, served a notice dated December 19, 1989 on the Secretary, Area Development-2, U. P. Government, Lucknow seeking from the Government, settlement of his outstanding claims by March 31, 1990 and grant of permission to him to retire from service voluntarily from that date. It was stated in that notice that the respondents outstanding claims remaining unsettled by the Government before March 31, 1990 shall be settled before June 30, 1990 and he shall then be allowed to retire voluntarily. However, changing his stance, the respondent wrote a letter dated December 20, 1989 to the selfsame Secretary seeking grant of the Governments permission to retire voluntarily from March 31, 1990 even if his outstanding claims with it were not settled by that date. But, the Government, did not grant permission to the respondent to voluntarily retire from its service with effect from March 31, 1990 as had been sought by him. Instead, the Governor of U.P. purporting to exercise his powers under F.R. 56 of the Financial Hand Book Volume II, Parts II-IV, as amended up to date (to be referred to as F.R. 56), issued an order dated January 6, .1990 compulsorily retiring the respondent from the Government service with effect from 6-1-1990 and giving him the benefit of three months wages at the last drawn rates. No doubt, that order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was challenged by him in a writ petition, W.P. No. 1980 of 1990 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. But, a Division Bench of that Court, refused to entertain that writ petition and dismissed it by its order dated March 29, 1990, which read :

"Learned counsel for the State has produced the record and has also filed counter-affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed. However, after looking into the record we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which the petitioner should be allowed to bypass the alternative remedy available to him before the UP. Public Services Tribunal. On account of this alternative remedy being available to the petitioner this petition is dismissed in limine. Interim order if any to vacate."

3. The validity of the said order of dismissal of the writ petition made by the Division Bench of the High Court was not questioned by the respondent in any appeal or any other legal proceeding. The respondent did not also choose to approach the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, to seek relieves respecting the order of his compulsory retirement although the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed his writ petition for not availing of the alternative remedy before that Tribunal.

4. Curiously, the respondent resorted to the course of filing a second writ petition before the same High Court challenging over again the very order of the U.P. Government by which he had been compulsorily retired and sought reliefs thereto. That second writ petition registered as W. P. No. 7498 of 1990, it appears did not come up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court as had happened with the earlier dismissed writ petition. Instead, it has come up for hearing before a single Judge Bench of the High Court. By his order dated February 19, 1992 the learned single Judge constituting that single Judge Bench allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order by which the respondent (the writ petitioner) had been compulsorily retired under F.R. 56 and directed the U.P. Government to treat the respondent as having retired voluntarily from March 31. 1990 and to pay his salary for the period elapsed between the date of his compulsory retirement and the date from which he wished to voluntary retire. It is the sustainability of this order of the learned single Judge made in the second writ petition of the respondent which is challenged by the State of U.P. and its Chief Engineer in the present appeal by Sp