# Ashish Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 174
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 431 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Indrajeet Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashish-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52817
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 12 ILRA 174
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 431 of 2025

Ashish Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Maintainability of Special Appeal against an
interlocutory order of a procedural nature.

Headnotes
(A) Practice and procedure - Special
Appeal - Interlocutory order - Vide
impugned order two weeks time was
granted to file response to the short
counter affidavit - Special Appeal was
filed against it - Maintainability. (E-1)

Held : The order impugned is purely an
interlocutory order of a procedural nature which
does not decide any issue whatsoever - Special
Appeal is maintainable against a judgment or
final order or an order having the trappings of
finality. The nature of the order which is
impugned herein does not fall in any of these
categories - No appeal lies under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
against the order impugned herein. This appeal
is not maintainable. [Paras 3, 4 and 5]

Case Law Cited
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ors.
Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC
399; Ashutosh Shrotriya and Ors. Vs. ViceChancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University and
Ors., (2015) 4 UPLBEC 2673; Deoraj Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1975;
- referred to.

List of Acts
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter
VIII, Rule 5.
List of Keywords
Interlocutory
order;
Special
Appeal;
Maintainability; Trappings of finality; Judgment;
Letters Patent.

Case Arising From
The order dated 26.11.2025 passed by Single
Judge in Writ - A No. 13339 of 2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant : Alok Mishra
Advs. for the Respondents : Additional Chief
Standing Counsel

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Indrajeet Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Shri Alok Mishra, learned
counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. By means of this special appeal an
order passed on 26.11.2025 by learned
Single Judge in Writ - A No. 13339 of
2025 has been challenged. The said order
reads as under:-

"Short affidavit filed today on
behalf of State is taken on record.

Learned counsel for petitioner
prays for and is granted two weeks time to
file response thereto.

List this case in 2nd week of
January, 2026 as fresh."

3. The order impugned is purely an
interlocutory order of a procedural nature
which
does
not
decide
any
issue
whatsoever. Two weeks time was sought
by the learned counsel for the appellant
himself which was granted and the matter
was posted in the 2nd week of January,
2026 as fresh.
12 All. Ashish Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
175

4. The Special Appeal has been filed
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952. The appeal under
aforesaid provision is maintainable against
a judgment or final order or an order
having the trappings of finality. The nature
of the order which is impugned herein does
not fall in any of these categories. We may
in this regard rely upon a judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs.
Chunilal Nanda and Ors. reported in
(2006) 5 SCC 399, wherein term 'judgment'
occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
pertaining to another High Court was taken
into consideration. The principle laid down
in the said judgment applies in this case on
all its fours. Para 15 and 16 of the said
judgment reads as under:-

"15. Interim orders/interlocutory
orders passed during the pendency of a
case, fall under one or the other of the
following categories:

(i) Orders which finally decide a
question or issue in controversy in the main
case.

(ii) Orders which finally decide
an issue which materially and directly
affects the final decision in the main case.

(iii) Orders which finally decide a
collateral issue or question which is not the
subject-matter of the main case.

(iv) Routine orders which are
passed to facilitate the progress of the case
till its culmination in the final judgment.

(v) Orders which may cause some
inconvenience or some prejudice to a party,
but which do not finally determine the
rights and obligations of the parties."

16.
The
term
'judgment'
occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent
will take into its fold not only the judgments
as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders
enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but
also other orders which, though may not
finally and conclusively determine the
rights of parties with regard to all or any
matters in controversy, may have finality in
regard to some collateral matter, which
will affect the vital and valuable rights and
obligations of the parties. Interlocutory
orders which fall under categories (i) to
(iii) above, are, therefore, "judgments" for
the purpose of filing appeals under the
Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders
falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not
"judgments" for purpose of filing appeals
provided under the Letters Patent.

5. The orders impugned herein falls in
the category of Clause (iv) of Para 15 of the
said judgment and does not fall in category
(i) to (iii) of the above quoted Paragraph 15
and 16 of the judgment in Midnapore' case
(supra). Likewise, is the law propounded
by a Full Bench of this Court in a case
reported in (2015) 4 UPLBEC 2673;
Ashutosh Shrotriya and Ors. Vs. ViceChancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University
and Ors., para 27 of which is relevant. In
view of the above discussion, no appeal lies
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952 against the order
impugned herein. This appeal is not
maintainable.

6. As regards reliance placed by the
learned counsel for the appellant on para 12
of a decision reported in AIR 2004 SC
1975; Deoraj Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors., firstly, when the appeal itself is
not maintainable there is no question of
considering the application of the said
judgment. Even otherwise, as, the learned
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel for the appellant insists that we
consider the application of the said
judgment, we are of the opinion that the
same has no application to the case at hand
for the reason, in the said case it has been
observed - "Situations emerge where the
granting of an interim relief would
tantamount to granting the final relief itself.
And then there may be converse cases
where withholding of an interim relief
would tantamount to dismissal of main
petition itself; for, by the time the main
matter comes up for hearing there would be
nothing left to be allowed as relief to the
petitioner though all the findings may be in
his favour. In such cases the availability of
a very strong prima facie case -- of a
standard much higher than just prima facie
case, the considerations of balance of
convenience
and
irreparable
injury
forcefully tilting the balance of case totally
in favour of the applicant may persuade the
Court to grant an interim relief though it
amounts to granting the final relief itself.
Of course, such would be rare and
exceptional cases. The Court would grant
such an interim relief only if satisfied that
withholding
of
it
would
prick
the
conscience of the Court and do violence to
the sense of justice, resulting in injustice
being perpetuated throughout the hearing,
and at the end the Court would not be able
to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously
such would be rare cases accompanied by
compelling circumstances, where the injury
complained of is immediate and pressing
and would cause extreme hardship. The
conduct of the parties shall also have to be
seen and the Court may put the parties on
such terms as may be prudent."

7. As would be evident from the
observations of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court the aforesaid recitals apply to a case
where withholding of an interim relief
would tantamount to dismissal of main
petition itself; for, by the time the main
matter comes up for hearing there would
be nothing left to be allowed as relief to
the petitioner. The case at hand is not such
a case as the order which is impugned in
the writ petition is one of suspension and
according to the learned counsel for the
appellant the said suspension order states
that a charge sheet will be served
subsequently but it has not been issued nor
served upon the
appellant, meaning
thereby,
there
are
no
chances
of
disciplinary proceedings being completed
before the 2nd week of January, 2026
when the writ petition has been posted.

8. As regards the contention of
learned counsel for the appellant that
charge sheets issued to the appellantpetitioner prior to his suspension have also
been challenged and as they are veritably
no charge sheet in the eyes of law,
therefore, if the stay is not granted and
disciplinary proceedings are concluded,
then, the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Deoraj
(supra) will apply, we wish to disagree for
the reasons already given. We are almost
in the midst of December, 2025. The Writ
Court has posted the writ petition in the
2nd week of January, 2026. There are no
chances of the disciplinary proceedings
being over by then in view of what has
been noticed hereinabove.

9. In view of the aforesaid, we are of
the considered opinion that against such an
order an appeal would not lie under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952. It is open for the
appellant to press all the grounds for
seeking interim relief on the next date fixed
in 2nd week of January, 2026, but, the
special
appeal
is
not
maintainable.
12 All. Singasan Sharma Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
177

10. Accordingly, the special appeal is
dismissed as not maintainable.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 177
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Special Appeal No. 530 of 2025

Singasan Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Legality of IInd stage enquiry of re-opening
the
issue
regarding
validation
of
an
appointment, the validity of which was earlier
adjudicated by the High Court and affirmed upto
the Supreme Court.
(2) Entitlement of the employee or their legal
representative to get salary and consequential
retiral benefits, in case the IInd stage enquiry of
re-opening the issue of validity of appointment
was found impermissible.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Stoppage of salary -
Appellants were appointed as Assistant
Teachers
in
1970s
and
continuously
discharged duties and paid salary for
several
decades
-
Validity
of
their
appointments and entitlement to salary
was
conclusively
adjudicated
vide
judgment dated 26.11.1998, which was
affirmed in Special Appeal by Division
Bench
and
further
in Special
Leave
Petition by the Supreme Court - Issue of
validity of appointment attained finality -
However,
approval
letter
was
found
doubtful in later enquiry held in pursuance
of an order passed in Public Interest
Litigation - Legality of stoppage of salary
challenged in writ petition, which was
dismissed by writ court - Validity of writ
order
challenged
-
Entitlement
of
employee to get salary and consequential
retiral benefits felt into consideration. (E1)
Held : Subsequent administrative inquiries,
including those arising out of a Public Interest
Litigation, could not have the effect of
reopening issues already settled by binding
judicial pronouncements. Once judicial finality
had been reached, the Director of Education
lacked jurisdiction to negate the appointments
or to stop salary on the basis of a general
inquiry report - Any doubt on their appointment
letter, even if got raised in the report after
decades of their service, is not attributable to
the appellants but arose due to a dispute in the
management. In such circumstances, denial of
salary and retiral benefits to the appellants is
wholly unsustainable in law - Equity, good
conscience, and settled service jurisprudence
mandates that salary dues, pension and gratuity
benefits for services of Singasan, Girija and Ram
Kumar Ram is required to be considered as they
have completed more than 3 years continuous
service for gratuity and more than 25 years of
service for pension benefits as per Rule. [Paras
16, 19 and 28]

Case Law Cited
Radhey Shyam Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others, (2024) 11 SCC 770; Kunhayammed
and others Vs State of Kerala and another,
(2000) 6 SCC 359; Usha Rani vs. State of U.P.
and
6
Others,
Neutral
Citation
No.-
2019:AHC:180910; Guru Charan vs. State of
U.P. and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 515 -
referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 136; U.P. Junior
High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers
and Other Employees) Act, 1978; Rules for
Grant of Gratuity to the Teachers of Aided
Educational Institutions, 1960 - Rule 17; U.P.
School and College Teachers Gratuity Fund -
Rule 5 and 6; Uttar Pradesh State Aidededucational Institution Employee's Contributory
Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules - Rule
17 and 19.

List of Keywords
Subsequent administrative enquiry; Stoppage of
salary; Grant of gratuity; Died in harness;
Termination;
Suspension;
Conclusive
adjudication; Procedural lapse; Rival Committee