Union Of India And Others ... vs Shashi Bhusan Pandey
2023 Latest Caselaw 132 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL

       THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
                       AND
         JUSTICE SHRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA

           SPECIAL APPEAL No.351 OF 2017

                    09TH JANUARY, 2023

Union of India and Others                        ......Appellants
                               Vs.

Shashi Bhusan Pandey                           ......Respondent

Presence: -
Mr. Atul Bahuguna, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for respondent.

JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

           The Union of India, and its officers, have

preferred the Special Appeal to assail the orders dated

29.03.2017 and 01.06.2017, passed by the learned Single

Judge in the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent,

being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 486 of 2017, "Shashi

Bhushan Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others". The

impugned orders are short, and they are reproduced

herein below:-

        Order dated 29.03.2017

                  "Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner.
                  Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the Union of
         India.
                 Petitioner was appointed as a temporary
         Clerk/Computer Operator on 18.02.2004 and his services
         were terminated orally on 10.02.2017.
                 According to the petitioner, no notice has ever
         been issued before terminating his services.
                 Consequently, the respondents are directed to
       reinstate    the   petitioner   forthwith    as  temporary
       Clerk/Computer Operator till further orders of this Court.
       Respondents are also directed to release the due and
       admissible salary to the petitioner.
                Let counter affidavit be filed in the matter within
       four weeks.
                List thereafter."


     Order dated 01.06.2017

                 "Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner.
                 Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the Union of
       India/respondents.
                 Heard on the stay vacation application.
                 No case made out by the respondents for vacating
       the interim order.
                 Interim order dated 29.03.2017 is confirmed."



2.          The respondent preferred the aforesaid Writ

Petition with a plea that he had been serving with

respondent    no.4-Garrison    Engineer,     Military   Engineer

Services,     Mall    Road,        Dehradun,       Cantonment,

Uttarakhand, on temporary basis, as a Clerk/Computer

Operator since 18.02.2004. He claimed that he had

worked continuously in the said organization up to

10.02.2017. He also claimed that he was paid monthly

consolidated amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month, in cash.


3.          Even though no appointment letter was issued

to him, he sought to place reliance on experience

certificates issued to him by respondent no.4 for the

period 18.02.2004 till 12.01.2009, and to certain gate

passes issued to him, as well as identity card issued to


                               2
 him by the respondents. He claimed that he had served

continuously for a period of 13 years with respondent

no.4.


4.        Upon a representation being made by the

respondent-writ     petitioner    for   regularization,   the

respondents have terminated his services verbally. He,

therefore, sought a mandamus to respondent no.4 to

reinstate him forthwith. The first impugned order dated

29.03.2017 was passed by the learned Single Judge on

the very first day of listing of the Writ Petition. Obviously,

no counter affidavit was called for from the respondents

by then, and none was on record. Virtually the final relief

prayed for in the Writ Petition was granted on the very

first day, without having the respondents' stand on

record. The respondent-writ petitioner then filed the

counter affidavit, and moved an application for vacation of

the interim order dated 29.03.2017, which has been

rejected by the second impugned order dated 01.06.2017.


5.        A perusal of the second impugned order shows

that the same does not record, much less deal with the

stand of the respondents. All that is observed is that no

case is made out by the respondents for vacating the

interim order.


                              3
 6.        We have heard learned counsels, and perused

the record.


7.        We completely disapprove of the manner, in

which, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the

first order. We are governed by the rule of law, and like

any other person or authority, we are equally bound by

the rule of law. It is well settled that interim relief in

service matters, which is in the nature of the final relief,

should normally not be granted. Grant of such interim

relief, which tantamounts to final relief, without even

calling for a reply from the respondents, is even more

unacceptable. On this short ground, the order dated

29.03.2017 is liable to be set aside, and we, accordingly,

set aside the same.


8.        The second impugned order dated 01.06.2017

can also not be sustained, since the same has been

passed without recording any reasons.      Moreover, since

the first order does not survive, the consideration of

legality of the second order does not really survive, and

the same has become academic. We, accordingly, allow

the present appeal and set aside the impugned orders.


9.        The writ petition is still pending consideration.


                             4
 The learned Single Judge dealing with the matter shall

decide the writ petition on its own merits, without being

influenced by this order.



                                   ________________
                                    VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.



                                ___________________
                                ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dated: 09th January, 2023 SK/SB