Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(Application No. 106293 of 2011)
1.Managing Director, U.P. Cane Co-Operative Federation Limited has filed the appeal which is beyond limitation.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Case relates to the year 2011. Eight years have gone by. We do not find any justifiable reason to adjourn the case to await appearance of the counsel.
3. For the reasons given in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay and in view of the fact that learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners has not opposed the condonation of delay, we hereby allow the application.
4. Learned counsel for respondents pray for taking up the main case/appeal for adjudication today itself.
27.8.2019 kkb/ Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 695 of 2011 Appellant :- Managing Director, U.P. Cane Co-Operative Federation Ltd Lko Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Tripathi Inre 2522(S/S) 2011 Counsel for Appellant :- Pushpila Bisht Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pratyush Tripathi Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(ORAL)
1. Managing Director, U.P. Cane Co-Operative Federation Limited has preferred this intra-Court special appeal in challenge to order dated 5.5.2011 rendered in Writ Petition No.2522(S/S) of 2011 titled "Narendra Kumar Tripathi versus State of U.P."
Vide the impugned order, respondent No.3 has been directed to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for payment of two months' salary within a fortnight in the light of the observations made by the Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not appeared. Case relates to the year 2011. Eight years have gone by. We find no justifiable reason to adjourn the case to await appearance of the counsel.
In the circumstances, with the assistance of learned counsel for respondents Mr. V.P. Nag, we have gone through the pleadings and contents of the impugned order.
3. On going through the contents of the impugned order and effect thereof, we find that rights of the parties have not been decided. The appellant/writ respondent has only been directed to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for payment of two months' salary within a fortnight in the light of the observations made by the Court.The appellant, therefore, would be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In case the order adversely affects rights of the respondent/writ petitioner, he shall have fresh cause of action to challenge it.
In view of the nature of the impugned order, we find no reason to adjudicate on the appeal.
4. The appeal is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 kkb/