http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NARENDRA NATH SINHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 523        1995 SCALE  (7)252

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      It is  not necessary  to go into the controversy raised in this appeal since the contesting respondents have already retired  by   attaining  superannuation.  This  Court  while granting leave and admitting the appeal stated thus:      "Status  quo  pending  disposal  of  the      appeal as  of today  in  the  matter  of      reversion  as   a  consequence   of  the      judgment  of   the  High  Court.  Future      Promotions will be subject to the result      of the appeal."      In the  judgment of  the High  Court in  first part  in paragraph 46. it was stated thus:      "We would  further like  to clarify that      any order  that may  be passed  in these      writ petitions  should  not  effect  any      confirmation  or  substantive  Promotion      made Prior  to the  filing of  the  writ      petitions."      In the  ultimate paragraph  of the  judgment a contrary opinion was expressed stating that any action taken Prior to November 29, 1979 was illegal.      It is  stated by the appellant that on his Promotion as Executive Engineer  on July  12, 1979 though initially on ad hoc basis,  he was confirmed and regularised as an Executive Engneer on  June 30, 1980. The writ petition came No.2447 of 1980 came  to be filed by V.N. Mittal on September 29, 1980. In view  of the  above facts  and in  view of the directions issued by  this Court  the consequence  would  be  that  the status quo which the appellant had Prior to the order passed by this  Court, would  continue. The  rights accrued  to the appellant Prior  to the  date of  the  filing  of  the  writ petition would  continue to  be available  to him, since his Promotion and confirmation as such was not quashed.      The Government, therefore, would work out the rights of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the appellant accordingly.      The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.