Allahabad High Court
Shabber Ahmad Siddiqui And Others vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 27 July, 2021
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1778 of 2000
Petitioner :- Shabber Ahmad Siddiqui and others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Educaion
Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Irfan Ahmad,G M Kamil
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
(C.M. Application No.85695 of 2021-Correction Application)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
This is an application filed by the petitioners, who are three in number, namely, Shabber Ahmad Siddiqui, Jai Prakash Tripathi and Ghulam Nabi Khan, for correction in the order dated 23.8.2017 passed by this Court.
The correction sought by the petitioners is that though the petition was filed on behalf of three petitioners, namely, Shabber Ahmad Siddiqui, Jai Prakash Tripathi and Ghulam Nabi Khan, however, during computerization process, the name of only petitioner no.1-Shabber Ahmad Siddiqui, was entered in the computer record and since then, the case is being named as 'Shabber Ahmad Siddiqui vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Education'. Learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants submits that on account of the said mistake, the benefit of the order passed by this Court is not being given to petitioner nos.2 and 3. He, therefore, prays that the aforesaid correction may be made in the aforesaid order.
In view thereof, the correction application is allowed and the order dated 23.8.2017 is corrected and now the corrected order reads as under:
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1778 of 2000
Petitioner :- Shabber Ahmad Siddiqui and others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Educaion
Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Irfan Ahmad,G M Kamil
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard Sri G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for the three petitioners, namely, Shabber Ahmad Siddiqui, Jai Prakash Tripathi and Ghulam Nabi Khan and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
The questions involved in this writ petition 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 the writ petition is 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, counsel for the parties have agreed for disposal of this writ petition by the following order:
(1) The petition 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 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 order passed in writ petition protecting the interests of the petitioners, to remain operative till disposal of Civil Appeal No.300 of 2016 pending before the Supreme Court.
(2) In view of the above, it is needless to mention that the respondents shall allow the petitioners to continue to work on the post, if they are working till today, and shall extend all benefits of interim order, 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.
Order Date :- 23.8.2017
Rajneesh DR-PS)"
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
Order Date :- 27.7.2021
Sachin
