By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. This is thoroughly misconceived and ill advised petition.

3. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) has directed for payment of a short amount of Rs. 3,000/-, balance towards gratuity and commuted pension alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent, vide impugned order dated 17.7.2002. Besides other, even consequences of this order are virtually negligible and still State of U.P. and its authorities, thought it expedient to challenge order of Tribunal in this Court and keeping this litigation alive for the last almost more than 18 years.

4. We are surprised, as to how authorities concerned including Legal Remembrancer could advise sanction for filing of this petition which is nothing but a sheer misuse of process of law and for this purpose the authority who sanctioned filing of this petition must be censored. Commenting upon such action of unfounded litigation initiated by State of U.P. against order of Tribunal a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Sri Suresh Kumar, 2011(9) ADJ 450 (DB)(LB), castigating such an approach on the part of State Government or its instrumentalities, observed :

“18. Having gone through the record and as discussed above we cannot refrain ourselves from placing on record our serious anguish and concern over the manner, the opinion has been given by Law Department of U.P. Government resulting in a frivolous, vexatious and total meritless writ petition filed by State and its officials.

19. The officials in Law Department are expected to show more vigilance, independence and better application of mind. They are not supposed to surrender to the wishes of department but simply continued litigation for the sake of it. There were two aspects in the matter. One was punishment and another was annual character roll which was adverse in the year 2002-03.

20. So far as the punishment part is concerned, it was already decided by Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 130 of 2009, decided on 4.9.2009 and, therefore, nothing has to be done. Now the only question was regarding adverse entry. The Tribunal has categorically held that the matter of adverse entry in the year 2002-03 has not been dealt with by Government in accordance with procedure prescribed in Rule 4 of 1995 Rules and the result thereof would be that entry cannot be treated to be adverse for the purpose of promotion, efficiency bar etc. as provided in Rule 5. On this aspect neither department found any ground to challenge the order of Tribunal nor the Law Department has made any observation. That being so, we do not find on record any justification whatsoever for taking the matter further. The petitioner and unfortunately the Law Department have dealt with this matter in most casual and reckless manner, as if continuing litigation is the legal right of petitioner.

21. We intend to place on record our deep dissatisfaction in the manner, the officials in Law Department are functioning. Error of judgment can be excused but surrender or non-application of mind cannot. The Judicial Officers are sent on deputation to the Law Department of Government with an objective that they constitute an independent cadre, hence without being influenced by executive, shall advise it impartially, objectively and fairly. If this does not happen, the very purpose in sending Judicial Officers on deputation with Government will frustrate. On the one hand from regular work these officers are taken out and sent on deputation to work like a Consultant but if their advise and opinion is not independent and impartial, it shall loose its gravity and frustrate the purpose. The officials in the Law Department, therefore, have to work with great caution, care and independence.

22. It is a matter of common knowledge that before the superior Courts, like High Court and Supreme Court, State (Provincial or Central, as the case may be) is the biggest litigant. In fact in writ jurisdic