Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.
2. The instant special appeal is barred by 129 days.
3. On due consideration, since reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay (C.M. Application No. 115950 of 2019) are satisfactory, therefore, C.M. Application No. 115950 of 2019 is allowed. Delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
4. The instant special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.4.2019 passed in Service Single No. 1932 of 1992 : Jalil Ahmad Ansari Vs. Registrar Cooperative Society, U.P., Lucknow and others, whereby the learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition with a direction that the writ petitioner is entitled to post-retiral benefits for the post of Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative), deeming the order impugned in the writ petition dated 21.3.1992 to have been quashed.
5. Jalil Ahmad Ansari, respondent herein, has filed writ petition No. 1932 of 1992 (S/S) against the order of reversion dated 21.3.1992 and a portion of the order dated 22.2.1992, whereby he was sought to be replaced by direct recruits on the post of Co-operative Inspector Grade-II/Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative). On 7.4.1992, the learned Writ Court had passed an interim order, which is as under :
"Notice on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. He may file counter affidavit within six weeks. The petitioner will have one week to file rejoinder affidavit. List the petition for further orders thereafter.
In the meantime, in case the petitioner was ordered to be promoted as Co-operative Inspector Group II/ADO (Co-opertive) by means of Annexure No.3 against a post, failing within the promotion quota and his promotion has not been made against a direct recruitment quota post, then only further operation of the order for the petitioner's reversion, contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition shall remain stayed."
6. The aforesaid ad interim order dated 7.4.1992 was operating till the disposal of Writ Petition No. 1932 of 1992 (S/S) (supra) i.e. on 18.4.2019. In the meanwhile, the respondents had superannuated on 30.6.2014.
7. After superannuation, when the matter was listed for hearing i.e. on 18.4.2019, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner had made a submission before the learned Writ Court that the writ petitioner had worked on the strength of interim order dated 7.4.1992 for the past 24 years and his reversion was erroneous on account of the fact that he was not holding a post which referred to direct recruitment. These submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Writ Court. In these backgrounds, learned Writ Court, considering the fact that the promotion of the writ petitioner on ad hoc basis on the said post was not under the direct recruitment quota which was the basis of the interim order having been passed in the writ petition and further the writ petitioner having superannuated after 24 years of service on the said post, allowed the writ petition by means of impugned order dated 18.4.2019 with direction that the writ petitioner is entitled to post-retiral benefits for the post of Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative), deeming the impugned order dated 21.3.1992 to have been quashed.
8. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the impugned order has been passed with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. During the pendency of the writ petition, application for amendment was filed by the writ petitioner, which was allowed. Thereafter, counter affidavit has been filed by the appellant in the writ petition, in which these facts have been admitted by the appellant.
9. Considering the aforesaid so also the facts that interim order dated 7.4.1992 was operating till disposal of the writ petition i.e. on 18.4.2019; no effort has been made on behalf of the appellant to vacate the said interim order dated 7.4.1992; and the impugned order has been passed with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court.
10. The special appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
.