(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We have heard Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Rajesh R. Dewal for the appellants. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging interim order dated 28/08/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10018 of 2012. The grievance of the appellants is that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Registrar of Bhavnagar University on probation for a period of one year by order dated 12/02/2008. He was discharged from the service as his work was not found satisfactory by the respondents by a simplicitor order dated 27/07/2009. The respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short 'Tribunal') being Application No. 2 of 2009, wherein the application has been allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 03/05/2012 and the termination order of respondent No. 1 has been set aside. It has been further directed that respondent No. 1 to be reinstated in service with back wages equal to salary minus Rs.35,000/- w.e.f. 08/09/2011 till reinstatement and if amount was not paid within one month of the order, then, 8% p.a. simple interest was payable. It was further directed that the respondent No. 1 shall be treated to be in continuous service. The appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge has admitted the writ petition and expedited the hearing of the same by order dated 28/08/2012, but, directed the appellants to deposit the amount for the period between 28/07/2009 and 26/08/2012 with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks and the amount deposited was permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No. 1. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the termination of service of the probationer was a termination order simplicitor and the Tribunal has committed illegality in holding that the termination order was stigma and the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was prima facie accepted by the learned Single Judge, that is why, the writ petition was admitted and the hearing was expedited but on Para 2 of the order, the appellants are heard by the fact that if the amount is paid to the respondent No. 1, it will be difficult for them to recover it back and further, it has been urged that the appellants would deposit the amount before this Court, which may be subject to decision of the writ petition.
2. Issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 12th October 2012.
2.1 In view of the statement made by the appellants, we direct the appellants to deposit the entire amount as directed by the learned Single Judge within the time period fixed by the learned Single Judge before the Registry of this Court, however, the amount deposited before this Court by the appellants shall not be withdrawn by respondent No. 1 or paid to respondent No. 1 by the Registry of the Court and it shall abide by the final decision of the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10018 of 2012.
2.2 We may clarify that the interim order passed by this Court may not be construed to mean that we have stayed the hearing of the writ petition, pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court.
[ V. M. Sahai, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren