Hon’ble Vijay Lakshmi, J.—This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.4.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 38093 of 2005, Satya Dev Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record.

3. On 3.2.2015 when this case was listed earlier the following order was passed:

“This case is listed peremptorily today.

This Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.4.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

The petitioner-appellant was terminated from his services for having performed bigamous marriage in contravention of Rule 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submitted that the services of the petitioner-appellant were not liable to be terminated in view of the clear provisions of sub-rule 3 of Rule 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the following judgments to support his contention:

1. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27963 of 2007 decided on 23.7.2009.

2. Laws (ALL)-1997-4-115, Paras Nath Pandey v. Assistant Director Administration Directorate of Training and Employment U.P. Lucknow.

3. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70379 of 2009, Shravan Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 2.7.2010.

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that Sub-Rule 3 in Rule 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 has now been omitted by notification No. 22/2/1969-Karmik-1 dated October 20, 1976.

Rule 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, before such omission of sub-rule 3 is reproduced below :

“29. Bigamous marriages : (1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him.

(2) No female Government servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government.

(3) A minor punishment to be imposed in contravention of sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), shall be withholding of the increments for three years.”

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that after omission of sub-rule (3) which prescribed for minor punishment of withholding of increments the petitioner-appellant was disqualified from Government services and his services have rightly been terminated.

At this stage learned counsel for the appellant prayed for and is granted a week’s time to cite some case laws in favour of the appellant.

List peremptorily in the next cause list.

Order Date : 3.2.2015"

4. No new case law after the aforesaid order was cited by learned counsel for the appellant. However, earlier by way of filing a supplementary-affidavit he had filed the following case laws:

1. Smt. Raj Bala Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 ILR (All) 617.

2. Nepal Singh v. State of U.P., 1984 STPL(LE) 11625 (SC)

3. Paras Nath Pandey v. Assistant Director Administration, Directorate of Training and Employment, U.P., Lucknow, Laws (ALL) 1997-4-115.

4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70379 of 2009, Sharvan Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 2.7.2010.

5. We have carefully gone through all these judgments and on perusal of these judgments, we are of the view that the appellant cannot avail any benefit out of these judgments because the facts of all these cases are entirely different from the facts of the case of the appellant. Moreover, all these judgments have been passed by learned Sin