The court maintains that pending Supreme Court decisions necessitate adjourning proceedings on petition challenges until final rulings are provided.

From the prayers of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has challenged some of the Rules of Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2016 to be ultra vires to the Constitution and prayed for the necessary declaration declaring them to be ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution.

Claiming identical reliefs several writ petitions are pending before this Court in which diverse orders were passed from time to time. One such order date April 10, 2025 was also passed by this Court in W.P.A. 7514 of 2025 In the matter of: Koushik Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors, as referred to by the petitioner.

Mr. Kallol Basu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to an interim order dated June 24, 2025 passed by a co-

ordinate bench at page 80 to the writ petition. L.I.C.I. has preferred an appeal from the same being MAT 1222 of 2024. The appeal was disposed of with the following observations: “2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge noticed that there are subsisting interim orders passed by the Coordinate Bench in a number of writ petitions spanning from 2019 till 2023. In view of subsistence of such interim orders, learned Single Judge proceeded to grant the same interim order to the writ petitioner by the impugned order.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, there are orders of different High Courts which did not grant such interim order.

4. The writ petition is yet to be finally decided. There subsists interim orders passed in a number of writ petitions spanning over a period of 2019 and 2023.

5. Learned Single Judge as a Coordinate Bench in respect of other learned Single Judges who passed interim orders was bound to follow such interim order granted.

6. Consequently, learned Single Judge passed the same interim order.

7. We find no infirmity in the exercise of such discretion by the learned Single Judge warranting an interference in an intra Court appeal.

8. M.A.T. 1222 of 2024 along with connected applications, if there by any, are disposed of.”

In view of the above, an interim order was passed by this Court on April 10, 2025 to the effect that the proceeding against the petitioner may continue but no final order shall be passed. The proceeding shall abide by the result of the writ petition. Parties were directed to exchange their affidavits. The said order date April 10, 2025 also noted pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration Mr. Avishek Guha, learned counsel has submitted that, in the meantime by a judgment dated December 20, 2024 in a bunch of writ petitions the Allahabad High Court, inter alia, in Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:200075-DB had held the subject Rules to be intra vires. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the subject Rules which are under challenge in the instant writ petition were the same Rules which were under challenge before the Allahabad High Court and the same were declared to be intra vires. Copy of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court placed before this Court is taken on record.

Several writ petitioners who were there before the Allahabad High Court being aggrieved by the said judgment preferred Special Leave Petition. Copies of a bunch of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the said Special Leave Petition from time to time being Special Leave Petition No. (Civil) Diary No(s). 6366/2025 have been made over to this Court, the same are taken on record. These orders record hearing of the Special Leave Petition was adjourned from time to time. The last order placed before this Court dated May 6, 2025 shows that the Special Leave Petition has been directed to appear in the last week of August 2025 on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

Referring to these orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court both the learned counsel for the respondents subm