Partly allowed

C/M Baba Laxman Das Dawaba Rashtriya Inter College v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2018SPLA/853/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal allowed by the Allahabad High Court setting aside an interim stay on a dismissal order. The court held that staying dismissal orders to grant post-retirement benefits predetermines the writ petition's merits without assessing irreparable injury or balance of convenience.

What did the court decide?

The interim order staying the dismissal of 25.07.2016 dated 28.08.2018 is set aside; the Single Bench is directed to decide the writ petition within two months.

C/M Baba Laxman Das Dawaba Rashtriya Inter… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 853 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- C/M Baba Laxman Das Dawaba Rashtriya Inter College Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Pandey,Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anwar Ahmad Siddiqui,Ashok Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 18204 of 2018.

¶6

In brief, factual matrix of the case is that under an order dated 14.07.2015, the respondent-petitioner was placed under suspension contemplating the disciplinary action. After holding an inquiry, the respondent-petitioner was dismissed from service and approval to the same was granted by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia vide order dated 25.07.2016. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Approving Authority, the respondent-petitioner preferred a petition for writ wherein the order impugned has been passed with operative portion in the terms that "I hereby stay the impugned order dated 25.07.2016 till further order."

¶7

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that staying the order dated 25.07.2016 on 28.08.2018 would amount to final disposal of the writ petition while considering the case for grant of interim relief and further the appellant-Employer is now required to restore the position of the respondent-petitioner as that was existing prior to 25.07.2016. It is asserted that the respondent-petitioner was terminated from service by way of punishment and his

¶8

restoration in service at this stage would be totally against the interest of the educational institution.

¶9

Per contra, as per learned counsel appearing for the respondentpetitioner, the order passed by learned Single Bench is absolutely in accordance with law and the same has been passed after arriving at a conclusion that a strong prima facie case exists in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that, as a matter of fact, only in the month of October, 2017, salary of the respondent-petitioner was stopped and further he has already attained the age of superannuation in the month of October, 2017 and, as such, there is no question of his restoration in service.

¶10

Heard learned counsels. The respondent-petitioner was dismissed from service on 25.07.2016 and the order of dismissal came to be approved by the competent Authority of the Department of Education. The issue as to whether the entire process of disciplinary action suffers from any illegality is yet to be examined by writ Court but now as a consequence to the interim order the Employer is required to settle all post-retiral benefits of the respondent-petitioner without getting its action examined on merits. In our considered opinion, the appropriate course before learned Single Bench, as such, was to dispose of the petition for writ after hearing learned counsels for the rival parties instead of staying the operation of the order of dismissal at this stage.

¶11

In the case in hand, as already stated, the respondent-petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and now as a consequence to the interim relief granted, the employer shall be having no option but to release all monetary benefits to the respondent-petitioner. There may be a prima facie case in favour of the respondent-petitioner but that is not the sole ingredient for grant of interim relief. It was also necessary for

¶12

the Court to assess irreparable injury going to be caused to the parties and further the balance of convenience in grant of interim relief. In the case in hand, these ingredients have not at all been examined.

¶13

In entirety, in our view, the order passed by learned Single Bench virtually amounts to acceptance of the writ petition while considering the case for grant of interim relief.

¶14

In view of whatever stated above, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 28.08.2018 is set aside to the extent it stays the order dated 25.07.2016.

¶15

Being a matter pertaining to dismissal of the respondentpetitioner, the writ petition requires expeditious disposal. Learned Single Bench, thus, is requested to consider and decide the writ petition at earliest as far as possible within a period of two months from today.

¶16

No order as to costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Shubham

¶18

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

C/M Baba Laxman Das Dawaba Rashtriya Inter College v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Baba Laxman Das Dawaba Rashtriya Inter College v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. and 3 Others Vs Azadar Hussain Rizvi

State of U.P. and 3 Others Vs Shekh Alauddin

State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and 3 Others Vs Gopal

C/M Madarsa Darul Uloom Hanifya Moiniya Islamiya and 2 Ord Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Mahipat Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Pyare Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.