Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Kaladhar Chaubey on 9 August, 2024
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak, Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010284612023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No: I.A.(Civil)/2294/2024
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY
GOVT. OF INDIA
NEW DELHI
PIN-110001
2: THE DY INSPECTOR GENERAL
CISF(NEZ)
KOLKATA-17.
3: THE COMMANDANT
CISF UNIT
ONGC
JORHAT
PIN- 785001.
4: THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT
CISF UNIT ONGC
JORHAT
PIN- 785001.
VERSUS
KALADHAR CHAUBEY
S/O SHARADA PRASAD CHAUBEY
R/O- HATHIAR KHURD
P.O- KATIHAR KALA
P.S- CHOLAPUR
DISTRICT- VARANASI (UP)
PIN- 221101.
------------
Advocate for : MRS. A GAYAN
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for : appearing for KALADHAR CHAUBEY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 09.08.2024
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for stay of
the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 06.06.2023, passed in
WP(C) 4518/2008 as well as order dated 02.08.2013, passed in Review Petition
No. 89/2023.
3. It may be mentioned that in the connected interlocutory application
for condonation of delay, being IA(Civil) No. 257/2024, the respondent has not
appeared despite service of notice.
4. It may be stated that the learned Single Judge had granted relief to
the opposite party herein in view of the earlier judgment and order of this Court
dated 10.05.2018, passed in WP(C) 4571/2008 and the dismissal of the Writ
Appeal No. 120/2019, which was preferred against the said judgment for the
purpose of granting relief in the WP(C) 4518/2008. It may also be stated that
the petitioners in both the aforesaid writ petitions were charged for same set of
charges. Accordingly, without prejudice to the appellant in the connected
appeal, the Court is inclined to stay the operation of only that part of the order
dated 02.08.2023, passed in Review Petition No. 89/2023 as well as order dated
06.06.2023, passed in WP(C) 4518/2008 insofar as it relates to payment of back
wages for the period the respondent was not in service.
Page No.# 3/3
5. However, it is made clear that the other directions contained in the
said judgment, which relates to reinstatement of the respondent in service has
not been stayed, but the same shall be subject to further or final order that may
be passed in the connected WA 251/2024.
6. Therefore, it is clarified that there is no impediment for the
reinstatement of the respondent in service in compliance with the judgment
dated 06.06.2023, passed in WP(C) 4518/2008, which shall be subject to further
orders that may be passed in the connected writ appeal.
7. With the aforesaid direction, this interlocutory application stands
allowed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
