# Anil Kishore v. State Bank Of India & Ors - **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 296 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-07-01 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 110 of 2024 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kishore-v-state-bank-of-india-ors-53527 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Anurag Srivastava Issue for Consideration That once the main writ petition, was decided finally and was allowed quashing the impugned orders, why the consequential relief may not be granted. Head Notes The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 47 Rule 1- Writ A No.6758 of 2004 allowed and connected Writ A No.6145 of 2002 was also allowed but no consequential relief granted to the 7 All. Anil Kishore Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. 297 petitioner - The consequential prayer made in paragraph 3 of the present judgment is to be granted, in case the petition is allowed - Review application allowed. Held- Writ of mandamus is issued holding and declaring that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001 the date when persons of lesser merit than to him were promoted by the respondent - Bank, without calling the petitioner to appear in the interviews-in pursuance of the written Exams held on 10.03.2002 and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof.(Para 9 & 10) (E-15) Case Law Cited List of Acts The Constitution of India, 1950, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 List of Keywords Main petition allowed; Consequential reliefs not granted; Review applicant has merit; Consequential reliefs are granted Case Arising From Review application in the writ petition Writ A No.6758 of 2004; Anil Kishore Gupta Vs. State Bank of India through its C.G.M. and 4 others Appearances for Parties Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya, Ram Achal Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Srivastava Judgment/Order of the High Court ## Text 296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES dated 19.02.2025, which is sought to be impugned in two appeals has been varied on multiple occasions by the Family Court, on applications moved by either of the parties. This fact is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the parties. 24. On a query Sri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondentmother (the appellant in First Appeal No.249 of 2025), submits, his client is ready to approach the Family Court. 25. The factual position that has been unfolded before us indicates that the matter relating to interim custody is still being agitated by the parties before the Family Court, and the same has not attained any degree of finality. 26. The main petition for guardianship, and custody also remains pending before the Family Court. 27. The impugned order of interim custody dated 19.02.2025 having been varied on multiple occasions, the same does not stand in its terms. 28. The resultant position is that the order impugned has been rendered ineffective due to the supervening events obviating the need for any intervention by the Court at this stage. The later developments have changed the circumstances in such a way that any adjudication on the merits of the order impugned would have no meaningful effect on the rights of the parties. 29. In a situation where an appeal has lost its efficacy, the Court is empowered - indeed, often expected - to dismiss the appeal as such. This general principle is applied when, due to later developments, circumstances have changed in such a way that a decision by appeal Court would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties involved. 30. The two appeals, in light of the changed circumstances, have lost their efficacy. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 31. The parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies before the Family Court. ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 296 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 01.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI J. Civil Misc. Review Application No. 110 of 2024 Anil Kishore ...Petitioner Versus State Bank Of India & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Petitioner: Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya, Ram Achal Gupta Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Anurag Srivastava Issue for Consideration That once the main writ petition, was decided finally and was allowed quashing the impugned orders, why the consequential relief may not be granted. Head Notes The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 47 Rule 1- Writ A No.6758 of 2004 allowed and connected Writ A No.6145 of 2002 was also allowed but no consequential relief granted to the 7 All. Anil Kishore Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. 297 petitioner - The consequential prayer made in paragraph 3 of the present judgment is to be granted, in case the petition is allowed - Review application allowed. Held- Writ of mandamus is issued holding and declaring that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001 the date when persons of lesser merit than to him were promoted by the respondent - Bank, without calling the petitioner to appear in the interviews-in pursuance of the written Exams held on 10.03.2002 and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof.(Para 9 & 10) (E-15) Case Law Cited List of Acts The Constitution of India, 1950, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 List of Keywords Main petition allowed; Consequential reliefs not granted; Review applicant has merit; Consequential reliefs are granted Case Arising From Review application in the writ petition Writ A No.6758 of 2004; Anil Kishore Gupta Vs. State Bank of India through its C.G.M. and 4 others Appearances for Parties Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya, Ram Achal Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Srivastava Judgment/Order of the High Court (Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali , J.) 1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, learned counsel for the review applicant, Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The ground for review in the present review application is that once the main writ petition i.e. Writ A No.6758 of 2004; Anil Kishore Gupta Vs. State Bank of India through its C.G.M. and 4 others, was decided finally and was allowed quashing the impugned orders, why the consequential relief may not be granted to him. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant invited attention of this Court on the prayer made in the subsequent writ petition i.e. Writ A No.6145 of 2002; Anil Kishor Vs. State Bank of India thru Chairman and 3 others, which is as follows: "i) by a suitable writ, order of direction or by a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus hold and declare that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001 the date when persons of lesser merit than to him were promoted, as such, by the respondent - Bank, without calling the petitioner to appear in the interviews-in pursuance of the written Exams held on 10.03.2002 and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof; ii) by a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus command the respondent authorities: a) to issue formal promotion order in favour of the petitioner - promoting him as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001, as a result of the above deemed promotion and issue posting orders to the said effect forthwith; b) to allow the petitioner all consequential benefits as a result of the above viz. arrears of pay, seniority, etc. etc. 298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES c) to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the aforesaid arrears of pay etc. iii) by a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of interim Mandamus command the respondent authorities to at least issue, forthwith, formal posting orders in favour of the petitioner as Trainee Officer, and pay him his current and future salary of the said post of Trainee Officer, without any interruption or hindrance, whatsoever in view of his deemed promotion as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001; iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and, in the interest of justice, and v) to allow exemplary costs of the petition, to the petitioner, against the respondents." 4. Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that in view of provisions contained under Chapter 9 Rule XIV of Rule of the Court, the entire facts and circumstances are to be placed and the diligence in regard to overlook the material on record only, the review application can be maintained. 5. Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that in view of judgment in the case of State Bank of India Vs. K.K. Gautam, the judgment passed in the writ petition is not sustainable in law. The argument advanced by Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.5 is also misplaced as while deciding the review petition, the material placed before the Court, if not considered, then it is left open to the Court to decide the review petition in accordance with that. 6. Writ A No.6758 of 2004 was allowed by means of judgment rendered in the present case and connected Writ A No.6145 of 2002 was also allowed but no consequential relief has been granted to the petitioner, therefore, in view of above material, the consequential prayer made in paragraph 3 of the present judgment is to be granted, in case the petition is allowed. 7. In this regard, against the judgment dated 16.08.2023, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed special appeal before Division Bench of this Court, which is sub judice and no final order has been passed till date, therefore, the argument advanced by him is misplaced. 8. In view of above, the submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant has merit in the case and therefore, the consequential reliefs are granted to him. 9. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued holding and declaring that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been promoted as Trainee Officer with effect from 01.08.2001 the date when persons of lesser merit than to him were promoted by the respondent - Bank, without calling the petitioner to appear in the interviews-in pursuance of the written Exams held on 10.03.2002 and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof. 10. In view of reasons recorded above, the review application is allowed. 7 All. Bindra Prasad Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 299 ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 299 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. Special Appeal No. 41 of 2025 Bindra Prasad Patel ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Shoar Mohammad Khan Counsel for the Respondents: Kushmondeya Shahi Issue for Consideration (A) Entitlement of a teachers of basic institution to get gratuity under Gratuity Act, 1972. (B) Permissibility of a teacher of basic institution to be covered within the definition of employee u/s 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, 1972 so as to extend the benefit of gratuity to them. Headnotes (A) Service Law - Gratuity - Entitlement - Prayer sought for release of gratuity was rejected by writ court - Validity challenged - Appeal was opposed on the ground that the appellant holds a post under the State Government and since is governed by scheme for payment of gratuity, framed by the State as such he would be excluded from the purview of S. 2(e) and so benefit of gratuity under the Gratuity Act, 1972 would not be available to the appellant - It was contended on behalf of appellant that for excluding a person from the definition of employee u/s 2(e), such person, in addition to holding a post under Central or State Government, must also be governed by a scheme for gratuity under any other Act or Rules - Applicability of Gratuity Act to a teacher of basic institution felt into consideration : Held : A headmaster or assistant teacher appointed in an educational institution established by the Board holds a post under the State Government - Non specification of Act or Rules in the exclusion clause contained in Section 2(e) and the use of expression "any other act or by any rules" essentially conveys that such scheme for payment of gratuity must be backed by requisite force of law - Reference to scheme for gratuity made under any other act or by any rules conveys expressions of wide magnitude. It cannot be restricted only to scheme for gratuity made under any specific Act or Rules, per se. Such scheme for gratuity for a person holding post under State Government can also be by way of Rules made in exercise of executive powers of State. This is so as the power with the State Government to frame scheme for payment of gratuity by way of executive instructions would be co-extensive with the legislative powers of State. (See: Article 162 of the Constitution of India). The argument of appellant's counsel that scheme for gratuity framed by the State in respect of teachers of basic institution since are not under any other Act or by any specific Rules made under any Act, therefore, the benefits under Gratuity Act, 1972 would be available to the appellant cannot be accepted - The benefits available to an employee under the Gratuity Act, 1972 would thus not be available to a teacher of a basic institution. [Paras 24, 27, 28 and 29] (E-1) Case Law Cited District Basic Education and another v. Shivkali and others, 2021 (10) ADJ 23 (DB); Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association Vs. Administrative Officer and others, (2004) 1 SCC 755; Independent Schools'Federation of India (Registered) Vs. Union of India and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1113; Writ A No. 5724 of 2024; University College Ret. Teachers Welfare Asso. Lko. Thru. its President Dr. S.S. Chauhan and another v. State of U.P. and others; Biharilal Dobray Vs. Roshan Lal Dobray, (1984) 1 SCC 551 - referred to.