STATE OF UP Vs. PITAMBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State, aggrieved by order dated 23.3.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 10464 of 2009, has preferred this appeal. THE learned Single Judge in the order has noted that the Government Order dated 9th March 2004, on the basis of which the notice was issued to the writ petitioner - respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') retiring him at the age of 58 years, had already been quashed, and that fact has been noticed by the Division Bench in its order dated 7.10.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 51679 of 2009 and, accordingly, quashed the notice dated 29.12.2008, and held that the respondent would be entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years, and shall also be paid salary in lieu thereof.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 51679 of 2009, the learned Division Bench, after noting the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner therein that the Government Order dated 9th March, 2004 had been quashed by judgment and order dated 8th September, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 39043 of 2006 (Jai INdra Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. and others) and other connected petitions, granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner in the said writ petition.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the issue, we may frame two questions, which have been raised and are required to be answered: