Allahabad High Court
B.S.N.L Thru. Chairman Cum-Managing ... vs Anwar Hussain And Another on 7 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73658-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10233 of 2024
Petitioner :- B.S.N.L Thru. Chairman Cum-Managing Director New Delhi And 3 Others
Respondent :- Anwar Hussain And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Singh Sikarwar
Counsel for Respondent :- Raj Singh,Deepak Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Singh Sikarwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and its officer have sought quashing of an order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow on the application for interim relief filed by the opposite party no.1 (applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal) in Original Application No.332/00599/2024, whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has stayed operation of the termination order dated 03.09.2024 which is under challenge in the Original Application.
3. The father of the opposite party no.1 died in harness on 27.02.2002 and he was appointed on compassionate basis by means of an order dated 27.10.2003. His appointment was terminated by means of an order dated 06.09.2007. The termination order was quashed by means of a judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.2 of 2015 and the petitioners were granted liberty to proceed afresh against the applicant in accordance with law. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.08.2024 was issued to the opposite party no.1 and his services were terminated by means of an order dated 03.09.2024. This order is under challenge in the aforesaid Original Application, which is pending before the CAT.
4. The learned Tribunal has recorded in the impugned interim order dated 03.10.2024 that services of the opposite party no.1 have been terminated vide order dated 03.09.2024 solely on the ground that his appointment was not approved by the competent authority. The learned Tribunal noticed that firstly the impugned order does not make any discussion regarding nature of appointment of opposite party no.1, whether it is temporary or permanent, secondly the termination order is silent regarding whether appointment of opposite party no.1 had been recommended by a duly constituted C.R.C., thirdly admittedly the opposite party no.1 was appointed by means of an order issued by the petitioners and the opposite party no.1 cannot be faulted for any defect in issuance of appointment order, more particularly when there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the opposite party no.1, fourthly the impugned order does not make any mention as to whether the persons allegedly placed below the applicant in the waiting list have been given employment and if so what feature distinguishes their case from the case of opposite party no.1, and lastly the fact that the opposite party no.1 has already rendered about 21 years service has not been taken into consideration.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid considerations, the learned Tribunal has stayed the operation of the order dated 03.09.2024 during pendency of Original Application, the effect whereof is that the opposite party no.1 has to be reinstated in service and paid salary. The petitioners have been granted opportunity to file a counter affidavit.
6. The aforesaid order is an interim order, which has been passed after recording prima facie satisfaction regarding grounds of challenge to the impugned termination order dated 03.09.2024. The petitioners have an opportunity to file counter affidavit/application for vacation of interim order. In these circumstances, there is no good ground for this court to interfere in a reasoned interim order dated 03.10.2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order virtually grants the final relief to the opposite party no.1, which is not permissible in law. The final relief sought before the Central Administrative Tribunal is quashing of the termination order dated 03.09.2024. An order staying the operation of the termination order dated 03.09.2024, the obvious consequence whereof would be continuance of opposite party no.1 in service, cannot be said to be an order granting final relief to the opposite party no.1, on the final relief would be quashing of the impugned termination order dated 03.09.2024.
8. Therefore, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned interim order grants final relief to the opposite party no.1.
9. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered view that there is no ground to entertain the writ petition filed against an interim order dated 03.10.2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.
[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.]
Order Date :- 7.11.2024
Shahnaz/Ram.
