Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Present special appeal is barred by limitation from 228 days.
Heard Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel, for the State appellants and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent on C.M.A. No. 97632 of 2019 as well as on the question of admission.
For the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay, the cause shown in the affidavit is sufficient and, as such, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and delay condonation application is allowed.
Present special appeal has been filed by the State appellants against the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 6800 (S/S) of 1986 whereby the learned Writ Court has considered the fact that appointment of respondent-petitioner was made as per rules and out of total 54 candidates the Selection Committee had appointed 04 candidates including the respondent-petitioner on the post in question and thereafter the services of all the four candidates have dispensed with vide order dated 03.09.1986 and 06.09.1986. Thereafter, the respondent-petitioner and other three similarly situated candidates have filed writ petitions before this Court challenging their termination on the ground that there was no complaint against them and all of sudden the appellants authority dispensed with their services by passing the orders impugned.
It is also stated that there was no irregularity committed by the respondent-petitioner and other similarly situated persons nor there was any material before the State Government to pass such orders, therefore, their termination order is bad in law.
Learned Writ Court on 28.07.2008 allowed the writ petition of other three employees being Writ Petition No. 6510 (S/S) of 1986, Krishna Kumar Srivastava and two others Vs. State of U.P. and others, but at the said point of time as the counsel of the respondent-petitioner passed away during pendency of the writ petition and the writ petition in question was dismissed for non-prosecution, therefore, writ petition of the respondent-petitioner could not be heard together with the aforesaid writ petition. After restoration when the matter was listed for hearing learned Writ Court relying upon the order dated 28.07.2008 passed in the writ petition of other three employees i.e. Writ Petition No. 6510 (S/S) of 1986, Krishna Kumar Srivastava and two others Vs. State of U.P. and others, allowed the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner on the ground of parity and directed the State appellants to provide all consequential service benefits to the respondent-petitioner also.
Learned counsel for the State appellants has submitted that in the writ petition of other three employees being Writ Petition No. 6510 (S/S) of 1986, Krishna Kumar Srivastava and two others Vs. State of U.P. and others, there was an interim order in their favour and due to the same they were working with the establishment concerned but as far as the respondent-petitioner is concerned though the writ petition has been filed by him but with no interim order in his favour and, as such, he has not performed any duty with the establishment concerned, therefore, direction of learned Writ Court to provide him all consequential service benefits as provided to other similarly situated candidates is bad in law and is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the said submissions by contending that the case of the respondent-petitioner is identical to the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 6510 (S/S) of 1986 and, as such, same treatment has been accorded to him by the learned Writ Court. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Writ Court is just and proper order and no interference is required by this Court.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the case of the respondent-petitioner is identical to the other three employees who have been granted all consequential service benefits by the learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 6510 (S/S) of 1986 but it is also equally true that the respondent-petitioner has not worked with the establishment concerned since long back, therefore, we, accordingly, modify the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the learned Writ Court by directing the State appellants to pay 25% of the back-wages to the respondent-petitioner alongwith other consequential service benefits within a period of eight weeks from today.
With the aforesaid, special appeal is disposed of.
[ Jaspreet Singh, J. ] [ Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J. ] Order Date :- 29.8.2019 Shekhar