IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6517 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13319 of 2009)

State of U.P. & Ors.                  …Appellants

VERSUS

Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Ors.                          …Respondents

O R D E R  

1. Leave granted

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.   

3. This  appeal  by  Special  Leave  is  directed  against  an  

interim order dated 23rd of October, 2008, passed by a Division  

Bench of the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench at  

Lucknow  in  a  special  appeal  being  SLP  (C)  75  of  2009,  

affirming an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of  

the High Court in a writ petition being W.P. No. 6516 (S/S) of  

2008.   

1

A  writ  application  has  been  filed  by  the  respondents  

challenging the orders of termination of their service before the  

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench at  

Lucknow.  By an interim order, a learned Single Judge of the  

High  Court  had  stayed  the  order  of  termination  of  the  

respondents.  An appeal was carried by the State of UP against  

that interim order before a Division Bench of the High Court,  

which,  however,  affirmed  the  interim  order  passed  by  the  

learned  Single  Judge  in  the  pending  writ  application  but  

directed the learned Single Judge to dispose of the pending  

writ application at an early date.   

Feeling aggrieved, the State of UP has filed this Special  

Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence  

of the learned counsel for the parties.   

We have heard Mr.  S.R.  Singh,  learned senior  counsel  

appearing for the State of UP and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned  

senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  respondents.  

Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and  

after considering the impugned orders as well as the nature of  

relief claimed in the writ petition by the respondents, we are of  

2

the  view  that  the  High  Court  had  fallen  in  grave  error  in  

staying the order of termination during the pendency of the  

writ petition.  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.   

We  are  informed  that  now  the  affidavits  have  already  

been exchanged and the  matter  is  ready for  hearing.   That  

being the position, we request the learned Single Judge of the  

High  Court  to  decide  the  writ  petition  at  an  early  date,  

preferably within three months from the date of supply of a  

copy of this order to it.   

3

For  the  reasons  aforesaid,  the  impugned  order  is  set  

aside.  The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.  

There will be no order as to costs.   

We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of  

the appeal, which shall be gone into by the High Court at the  

time of disposal of the writ petition.       

…………………………………J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

NEW DELHI:                                ……………….……………….J. September 18, 2009                               [ R.M. LODHA ]   

4