Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(C.M. Application No. Nil of 2000).
1. The application seeks condonation of delay in filing the special appeal.
2. For reasons given in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay, the application is allowed.
3. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. On request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is being taken up for hearing today itself.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Nishant/-
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 536 of 2000 Appellant :- The Director Of Agriculture U.P.Lko.And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- Sri Mahendra Pratap Pal Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Dwijendra Nath Pandey,Jokhu Lal Yadav Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(ORAL)
1. Director of Agriculture, U.P., Lucknow and three other State functionaries have preferred this special appeal/intra-Court appeal directed against order dated 29.07.1999 rendered in Writ Petition No.101 (SS) of 1994 titled 'Mahendra Pratap Pal vs. The Director of Agriculture, Lucknow and others'.
Vide the impugned order, Director Agriculture was directed to take a decision to regularise the petitioner on the post of clerk, if he has worked on the post of clerk, and to pay him salary within a month from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
2. We have taken judicial notice of the fact that Application No.85750 of 2019 has been filed at the instance of the respondent/writ petitioner with the plea that the appellant/State has failed in complying provisions of the law insomuch as no steps have been taken to serve the respondent/writ petitioner and therefore, on that count itself, the appeal be dismissed.
3. We have considered the plea in the application. However, we have also considered the merit in the appeal.
4. We have posed a question to learned counsel appearing for the State as to what actionable cause of action has been brought before the Court. Director, Agriculture was only directed to take a decision in regard to claim of the writ petitioner to regularise, vide the impugned order. In case a decision has been taken, a fresh cause of action would have arisen. In case decision has not been taken, the writ petitioner could have gone in a petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
5. Be that as it may, vide the impugned order rights of either side has not been adjudicated or decided.
6. For reasons given above, we find no reason to entertain the appeal.
7. The appeal is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Nishant/-