# Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 53 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-07-31 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 239 of 2020 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rana-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45995 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Courts Act, 1971: Section 19; Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952: Chapter VIII, Rule 5 - Maintainability of appeal - Interlocutory orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case or which finally decide a collateral issue or a question which is not the subject matter of the main case, are "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the relevant rules of the High Court. (Para 8, 9) In the present case, the order dated 04.03.2020, against which the present appeal has been preferred, is merely of a procedural nature and cannot in any manner be said to touch the merits of the controversy or the dispute between the parties so as to be deemed to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. (Para 11) B. Words & Phrases - "Judgments" - routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment are not to be held as "judgments" for the purposes of filing intracourt appeals. 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, would not amount to "judgments". (Para 13) Special appeal dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: ## Text 9 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 53 (2020)09ILR A53 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Special Appeal No. 239 of 2020 Rana Pratap Singh ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri J.P. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Bheem Singh, Sri Indal Singh A. Service Law - Recovery of salary amount - The State cannot be burdened with the payment of salary to two persons staking claim to the same post and the regular incumbent alone is entitled for salary. (Para 4) Petitioner continued to discharge duties as Officiating Principal even after the regular Principal had joined. Therefore, recovery was held unjustified. B. Fixation of pension - Petitioner was not legally entitled to continue as Officiating Principal after 20.05.2010 i.e. the date when the regular incumbent had joined the post of Principal, therefore, the prayer for fixation of pension treating the last pay drawn by the petitioner to be that of the Officiating Principal, cannot be accepted. (Para 5) Special appeal dismissed. (E-4) Present special appeal challenges judgment and order dated 14.02.2020, passed by the writ court. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. & Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri J.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, Sri Bheem Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Sri Indal Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. 2. The judgment and order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the writ court allowing the writ petition in part is under challenge. 3. The petitioner worked as Officiating Principal for a certain time period in an Intermediate College. He challenged the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby the recovery of salary amount for the period 20th May, 2010 to 30th June, 2010 was ordered against him. 4. The learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition in part held that in so far as the petitioner continued to discharge duties as Officiating Principal during the period 20th May, 2010 to 30th June, 2010, the recovery is not justified. However, as the respondent no. 6, Dr. Savindra Kumar Singh, had joined as regular Principal of the Institution on 20th May, 2010, the State could not be burdened with the payment of salary to two persons staking claim to the same post and it is the regular Principal who is alone entitled for salary. It was further observed that in view of the above, the Court could not accept the claim of the petitioner-appellant for fixation of pension on the basis of the last pay drawn as Officiating Principal. 5. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the pensionary benefits have to be 54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES determined on the basis of the last pay drawn, we are of the view that the petitioner was not legally entitled to continue as Officiating Principal after 20th May, 2010 i.e. the date when the regular incumbent had joined the post of Principal, and as such the prayer for fixation of pension treating the last pay drawn by the petitioner to be that of the Officiating Principal can not be accepted. 6. In this view of the matter, we find no error or irregularity in the judgment under appeal. 7. This special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2020)09ILR A54 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Special Appeal No. 262 of 2020 Roop Singh ...Appellant Versus Shri Vinay Kumar Jauhari & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, Sri Ravindra Narayan Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Uday Pratap Singh, Sri Kshitij Shailendra A. Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 19; Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952: Chapter VIII, Rule 5 - Maintainability of appeal - Interlocutory orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case or which finally decide a collateral issue or a question which is not the subject matter of the main case, are "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the relevant rules of the High Court. (Para 8, 9) In the present case, the order dated 04.03.2020, against which the present appeal has been preferred, is merely of a procedural nature and cannot in any manner be said to touch the merits of the controversy or the dispute between the parties so as to be deemed to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. (Para 11) B. Words & Phrases - "Judgments" - routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment are not to be held as "judgments" for the purposes of filing intracourt appeals. 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, would not amount to "judgments". (Para 13) Special appeal dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: 1. Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others, (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Para 7) 2. Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania and another, (1981) 4 SCC 8 (Para 8) 3. A.P. Verma and others Vs. U.P. Laboratory Technicians Association and others, 1998 (3) AWC 2264 (Para 9) Precedent distinguished: 1. Anil Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh and others, 2015 (8) ADJ 724 (Para 5, 14) 2. Subhash Chandra Tiwari and 2 others Vs. Kishore and 4 others, Special Appeal No. 314 of 2019, decided on 05.03.2019 (Para 5, 14)