Allahabad High Court
Fareed Ahmad vs State Of U.P.Through Secy. ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3713 of 2011
Petitioner :- Fareed Ahmad
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy. Secondary Education U.P.Civil
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
There is a consensus at the Bar that the matter is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in bunch of special appeals and writ petitions being leading Special Appeal No.306 of 2012 In re: Ram Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 26.7.2017. For the sake of convenience, judgment and order dated 26.7.2017 is reproduced below:-
"The questions involved in this bunch of special appeals/writ petitions and the questions that were raised, considered and answered by this Court vide judgment and order dated 17 December 2015 in Writ Petition No. 655 (S/S) of 2014 are similar. The concluding paragraph of the judgment reads thus:
"For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the view of the learned Single Judge in Sanjay Singh's case (supra) cannot be upheld as laying down the correct position in law. The view of the learned Single Judge shall stand, accordingly, overruled. The judgment in Pradeep Kumar (supra) is upheld subject to the principles which, we have enunciated in this judgment.
The second issue which has been referred for decision before the Division Bench is the scope of Section 16-E (11) when read in the context of Sections 16, 22, 32 and 33-E of the Act of 1982. We have already dealt with the interpretation of these provisions in the course of the judgment.
The reference to the Division Bench shall stand answered in the aforesaid terms. The record of these proceedings shall now be remitted back to the learned Single Judge, according to roster, for disposal in the light of the questions answered."
It is not in dispute that these special appeals/writ petitions are squarely covered by the said judgment, which is also under challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 (arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 15272 of 2016). The Supreme Court, on 22 August 2016, while entertaining the SLP, granted leave and also stay of operation of the impugned judgment [dated 17 December 2015 in Writ Petition No. 655(S/S) of 2014] until further orders. In this view of the matter, yesterday, we made certain suggestions to learned counsel for the parties and asked them to consider the same and take instructions in the light thereof. Today, all counsel for the parties have agreed for disposal of this bunch of special appeals and writ petitions by the following order:
(1) The appeals/petitions also stand disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17 December 2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 655 (S/S) of 2014, subject to outcome of Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 pending before the Supreme Court and/or modification of interim order dated 22 August 2016, if any. In other words, if Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 is allowed, counsel for the respondents submit that they shall give all benefits to the appellants/petitioners also in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court, unless there is any other legal impediment and if any aspect is not covered by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17 December 2015. Subject to above, parties have agreed for allowing the interim orders passed in special appeals/writ petitions protecting the interests of the appellants/petitioners, to remain operative till disposal of Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2016 pending before the Supreme Court.
(2) In view of the above, it is needless to mention that the respondents shall allow the appellants/petitioners to continue to work on the posts, if they are working till today, and shall extend all benefits of interim orders, if any, till disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court, unless there is any other legal impediment and if any aspect is not covered by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17 December 2015.
(3) It is open to the respondents to take appropriate decision/action after disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court subject to the order/judgment passed therein."
Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of order dated 26.7.2017 in Ram Pratap Singh's case (supra), the present petition is disposed of in same terms providing that the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.7.2017 in Ram Pratap Singh's case (supra).
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Rakesh
(Abdul Moin, J.)
