Back
2004 Supreme(All) 1111
2004 (4) AWC 3058
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.
Special Appeal No. 503 of 2004
Decided on July 7, 2004
Nagar Palika Parishad (Nagar Panchayat) Mohammadabad and another
Versus
Ramjas Ram and another
Counsel for the Appellants : A. K. Singh.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : A. N. Srivastava.
Relief which is asked for and available at the disposal of the matter should not be granted at the interlocutory stage.
Headnote:
Interim Order - Temporary Appointment - The court set aside an interim order granting the writ petitioners the right to work and salaries, stating that such a relief cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents were appointed on a temporary basis as daily wagers and were disengaged in 2000. The learned single Judge had directed that the writ petitioners were entitled to work and salaries through an interim order.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the interim order, stating that granting the final relief by an interim order was not proper, and requested the learned single Judge to decide the writ petition expeditiously.
Issues: The issue was whether the interim order granting the writ petitioners the right to work and salaries was proper.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions and precedents to establish that relief which is asked for and available at the disposal of the matter should not be granted at the interlocutory stage.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the interim order was set aside, with a request for the writ petition to be decided expeditiously.
M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.—Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. It appears that the respondents were appointed on purely temporary capacity on the post of Safai Mazdoor in the service of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mohammadabad, district Ghazipur as daily wagers. They were disengaged in the year 2000.
3. By the impugned interim order dated 9.4.2004 the learned single Judge has directed that the writ petitioners are entitled to work and shall get salaries. It is well-settled that by an interim order the final relief cannot be granted vide Union of India v. Modiluft Ltd., 2003 (4) AWC 2796.
4. In U. P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. D. Sheetal Nanda, 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 680, the Supreme Court observed :
“It is well known rule of practice and procedure that at the interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted.”
5. This view has been followed by the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of U. P. and others v. Km. Renu Tiwari and others, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1325.
6. By the impugned interim order dated 9.4.2004 the writ petitioners have been practically reappointed after a gap of four years.
7. In our opinion, this was not proper as it amounts to granting the final relief, by an interim order.
8. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 9.4.2004 but we request the learned single Judge before whom it may now come up to decide the writ petition itself expeditiously.
9. Appeal is allowed.
