# Vice Chairman, ABSS Institute of Technology, Meerut v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 58
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-12
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 306 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vice-chairman-abss-institute-of-technology-meerut-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48919
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Termination order
challenged - Interim order passed staying
the termination order - Permissibility -
Interim order, to what extent, can be
passed - Principle laid down - An interim
order can be passed by a Court of law only
in aid of a final relief prayed for. An
interim order ought not to be passed by a
Court which is in the nature of a final
relief itself. if such an order is passed
virtually
nothing
will
remain
to
be
adjudicated at the final hearing stage.
(Para 3)
Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were 35,000, which stood filled up. More
than a decade has passed since then and
during the intervening period, number of
other selections have been made.

12. For the reasons mentioned above,
we do not find any merit in the present
appeals.
The
same
are,
accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 58
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 306 of 2022

Vice
Chairman,
ABSS
Institute
of
Technology, Meerut ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vibhu Rai, Sri Abhinav Gaur, Sri Anoop
Trivedi (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ajal Krishna, Sri Rohit Pandey,
Sri Vijay Tripathi

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Termination order
challenged - Interim order passed staying
the termination order - Permissibility -
Interim order, to what extent, can be
passed - Principle laid down - An interim
order can be passed by a Court of law only
in aid of a final relief prayed for. An
interim order ought not to be passed by a
Court which is in the nature of a final
relief itself. if such an order is passed
virtually
nothing
will
remain
to
be
adjudicated at the final hearing stage.
(Para 3)
Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Sandeep Kumar Balmiki
& ors.; 2009 (17) SCC 555
2. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs
Rameshwar Dayal; AIR 1961 SC 689
3. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad &
ors. Vs Sanjiv Rajan; 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483
4. St. of Har. Vs Suman Dutta; (2000) 10 SCC
311
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. This Intra Court Appeal has been
filed questioning the interlocutory order
dated 23.3.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ-A No. 2695 of 2022
(Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P.
and 4 others) whereby and whereunder
entertaining the writ petition against the
termination order dated 6.4.2021 passed by
the Vice Chairman Abbs Institute of
Technology, Meerut a private educational
institution and inviting a response to the
writ petition has stayed the termination
order dated 6.4.2021 and permitted the writ
petitioner/respondent to perform his duty as
he was discharging earlier and shall be paid
his salary which shall be subject to final
outcome.

2. A perusal of the impugned order of
the learned Single Judge reveals that while
the writ petition has been kept pending by
inviting counter and rejoinder affidavits the
termination order dated 6.4.2021 passed by
the
appellant
who
was
arrayed
as
respondent No.2 in the writ petition has
been
stayed
with
further
direction
permitting the petitioner/respondent to
perform his duties and paid salary, the
learned Single Judge has virtually granted
8 All. Vice Chairman, ABSS Institute of Technology, Meerut Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
59
the final relief to the writ petitioner/
respondent.

3. An interim order can be passed by a
Court of law only in aid of a final relief
prayed for. An interim order ought not to be
passed by a Court which is in the nature of
a final relief itself. if such an order is
passed virtually nothing will remain to be
adjudicated at the final hearing stage. In the
case at hand the learned Single Judge by
staying the termination order and directing
for payment of salary to the writ
petitioner/respondent has virtually granted
the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition
which could not have been done at the
initial stage. We also find that the
termination order is dated 6.4.2021. The
writ petition was filed on 20.12.2021 and
the interim order staying the termination
order was passed on 23.3.2022.

4. The Apex Court in the case of State
of U.P. and others vs. Sandeep Kumar
Balmiki and others, reported in 2009 (17)
SCC 555, while considering the property of
granting final relief at the interim stage,
made the following observations which is
being quoted hereunder:-

"In our view, the interim order
granted by the High Court staying the
order of termination could not be passed at
this stage in view of the fact that if such
relief is granted at this stage, the writ
petition shall stand automatically allowed
without permitting the parties to place their
respective cases at the time of final hearing
of the writ petition. In this case also, the
appellants have not yet filed counter
affidavit to the writ petition of the
respondents.

That being the position and in
view of the fact that the final relief could
not be granted at the interim stage, we set
aside the impugned order and vacate the
interim order passed by the High Court."

5. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills
Co. Ltd. vs. Rameshwar Dayal, AIR 1961
SC 689, this Court examined the point as to
whether a workman could be ordered to be
reinstated as an interim measure pending
final adjudication by the Tribunal under the
Industrial Disputes Act. In the said case the
employer dismissed the workman for
disobeying the orders of the managing
authority. The workman filed an application
before the Industrial Tribunal under Section
33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
contesting
his
dismissal
on
various
grounds, whereupon the Tribunal passed an
order to the effect that as an interim
measure the workman be permitted to work
and if the management failed to take him
back his full wages be paid from the date
he reported for duty. The employer
challenged the order of the Tribunal by
filing a writ petition before the High Court
which was dismissed. On appeal by a
certificate of the High Court it was held
that the order of reinstatement could not be
given as an interim relief because that
would be giving the employee the very
relief which he would get if order of
dismissal is not found to be justified. Order
passed by the Tribunal was held to be
manifestly erroneous and set aside. It was
observed:

"We are of opinion that such an
order cannot be passed in law as an interim
relief, for that would amount to giving the
respondent at the outset the relief to which
he would be entitled only if the employer
failed in the proceedings under s. 33-A. As
was pointed out in Hotel Imperial's case
(1960(1) SCR 476, ordinarily, interim relief
should not be the whole relief that the
workmen would get if they succeeded
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
finally. The order therefore of the Tribunal
in this case allowing reinstatement as an
interim relief or in lieu thereof payment of
full wages is manifestly erroneous and must
therefore be set aside."

6. In U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Parishad & Ors. vs. Sanjiv
Rajan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483, it was
held by this Court that it was desirable
that an order of suspension passed by a
competent
authority
should
not
be
ordinarily interfered by an interlocutory
order pending the proceeding. It was
observed:

"Whether the employees should
or should not continue in their office
during the period of inquiry is a matter to
be assessed by the authority concerned
and ordinarily, the Court should not
interfere with the orders of suspension
unless they are passed mala fide and
without there being even a prima facie
evidence
on
record
connecting
the
employees
with
the
misconduct
in
question."

7. In State of Haryana vs. Suman
Dutta, (2000) 10 SCC 311, this Court set
aside the order passed by the High Court
staying the order of termination as an
interim
measure
in
the
pending
proceeding. It was observed:

"We are clearly of the opinion
that the High Court erred in law in
staying the order of termination as an
interim measure in the pending writ
petition. By such interim order if an
employee is allowed to continue in
service and then ultimately the writ
petition is dismissed, then it would
tantamount to usurpation of public office
without any right to the same."

8. From the abovenoted decisions, it
is evident that the Apex Court has
consistently been of the view that by way
of an interim order the order
of
suspension termination, dismissal and
transfer etc. should not be stayed during
the pendency of the proceedings in Court.

9. In view of the above, we are of
the considered opinion that the impugned
order to the extent it stays the termination
order dated 6.4.2021 and permits the writ
petitioner to perform his duty as he was
discharging earlier and shall be paid his
salary which shall be subject to final
outcome cannot be sustained and is
accordingly set aside. The appeal is
allowed to the extent indicated above.

10. The writ petition shall be heard
on its merit upon exchange of the
pleadings as directed by the learned
Single Judge. We leave it open for the
parties to request the learned Single
Judge to decide the writ petition at an
early date.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 60
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 530 of 2019

Famina Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents: