PRAMOD SHARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IT is not disputed that when the writ petition was filed in the year 2001 the petitioner was in service. However, on 5.3.2014 petitioner -appellant has already superannuated. Question cropped up whether on account of pendency of writ petition in this Court petitioner is suffered adversely. It is well settled proposition of law that no one should suffer on account of lapses or inaction on the part of the Court. Admittedly, in case, a writ petition was decided in the year 2001 or before the age of superannuation i.e. 31.8.2006, this Court would have interfered and direction could have been passed to consider the petitioner's case for regularization.

(3.) IN a case S.S.Barathokey Vs. Chairman U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corpn Ltd and another,1993 11 LCD 487 this court after considering Apex court judgements held that on account of pendency of writ petition or for any inaction on the part of court or its employees, litigant cannot be put to suffer. The benefit which may be available during the pendency of writ petition may be made available to the employee concerned even after retirement from service.