REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7756 OF 2011         (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 35901 of 2010)

MUKHIYA KARYAPALAK ADHIKARI, U.P. KHADI TATHA GRAMODYOG BOARD KARMIT ANUBHAG, LUCKNOW & ANR.       Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

SANTOSH KUMAR                                     Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

parties on this appeal who have taken us through the records.  

The respondent was engaged on contract basis as a Peon on a  

lumpsum salary of Rs. 2,500/- on 1.4.2003.  Subsequently, an  

order came to be passed against the respondent on 26.6.2004.  By  

the aforesaid order, the contract service of the respondent was  

terminated w.e.f. 5.7.2004.

3. The respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of  

termination filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court  

which  was  registered  as  28789  of  2004.   In  the  said  writ  

petition filed by the respondent, a prayer was made for quashing  

the  order  dated  26.6.2004  terminating  the  service  of  the  

respondent.   The  learned  Single  Judge  who  heard  the  writ  

petition passed an order on 28.7.2004 dismissing the said writ  

petition  holding  that  the  engagement  of  the  respondent  on

contract basis did not vest on him any legal right to regular  

appointment.

-2-

4. The High Court passed an order in the said appeal which  

was filed in 2004 which was registered as Special Appeal No.  

1066 of 2004.   The appeal was listed before the Division Bench  

nearly six years of passing of the order of the learned Single  

Judge and the Division Bench passed the order for admitting the  

appeal.  But peculiarly enough the High Court passed an order  

that  the  order  dated  26.6.2004  passed  by  the  appellant  

terminating the service would remain stayed.  It was also made  

specific in that order that the respondent should be allowed to  

continue to work.

5.  We fail to understand as to how the Division Bench while  

admitting an appeal could pass such an order so as to allow the  

appeal itself even at that interim stage.  The respondent was  

not working when the suit was filed and his writ petition was  

dismissed.  Despite the said fact not only the Division bench  

stayed the operation of the order after six years of filing the  

appeal, but directed for allowing the respondent to continue to  

work despite the fact that he was not working on that date.

6.  Therefore,  the  aforesaid  order  passed  by  the  Division  

Bench is illegal, without jurisdiction and was passed without  

any application of mind.  We set aside the said order and remit

back the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for  

disposal of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.  The order  

dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench staying the order  

dated 26.6.2004 and directing the appellant to allow the  

-3-

respondent  to  continue  to  work  stand  quashed  and  would  not  

operate in any manner till the disposal of the appeal.

7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent in terms of  

the aforesaid order.

   ...........................J.     (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

   ...........................J.     (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 08, 2011.