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

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(SC) 884

2011 (6) Supreme 221
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Mukhiya Karyapalak Adhikari, U.P. Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board Karmit Anubhag, Lucknow & Anr. — Appellant(s)
versus
Santosh Kumar — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 7756 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 35901 of 2010)
Decided on : 8-9-2011

Headnote:Service Law- Respondent engaged on contract basis as a Peon on a lumpsum salary of Rs. 2,500/- on 1.4.2003- Termination of contract service of respondent w.e.f. 5.7.2004 by an order passed on 26.6.2004 -Writ Petition thereagainst-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- High Court passed an order that order dated 26.6.2004 passed by appellant terminating the service would remain stayed- It was also made specific in that order that respondent should be allowed to continue to work-Held incomprehensible as to how Division Bench while admitting an appeal could pass such an order so as to allow 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 Division Bench stayed the operation of the order after six years of filing appeal, but directed for allowing respondent to continue to work despite the fact that he was not working on that date-Hence said order passed by Division Bench held illegal, without jurisdiction and was passed without any application of mind- Impugned order set aside and matter remitted back to High Court for disposal of the appeal as expeditiously as possible-Appeal allowed to said extent (Paras 5 to 7)
       Facts of the Case :
        Respondent herein in the instant case was engaged on contract basis as a Peon on a lumpsum salary of Rs. 2,500/- on 1.4.2003.Contract service of respondent was terminated w.e.f. 5.7.2004 by an order passed on 26.6.2004. Writ Petition thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        High Court passed an order that order dated 26.6.2004 passed by appellant terminating the service would remain stayed. It was also made specific in that order that respondent should be allowed to continue to work. It was Held incomprehensible as to how Division Bench while admitting an appeal could pass such an order so as to allow 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 Division bench stayed the operation of the order after six years of filing appeal, but directed for allowing respondent to continue to work despite the fact that he was not working on that date. Hence said order passed by Division Bench held illegal, without jurisdiction and was passed without any application of mind. Impugned order was set aside and matter was remitted back to High Court for disposal of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Appeal was allowed to said extent .

ORDER

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.

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 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.

***********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document