RAM NARESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants Sri Pankaj Srivastava and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.K. Chaudhary and Sri M.P. Singh for the respondents. By means of the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has vacated the interim order dated 7.1.09 and has directed that the writ petitions be listed for hearing on 20.7.09. Lengthy arguments have been raised from both the sides in support of their respective claims. The appellants claim that the interim order could not have been vacated as on the application for recall, this order has been passed, though that application already stood rejected. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, explaining the aforesaid position, says that the order under appeal, as a matter of fact, was passed on the application for vacation of stay order, but by mistake it has been mentioned that the order was being passed on the application for recall. He also informed the Court that an application for correction of the order has already been moved before the Judge concerned. We do not find it necessary to keep the matter pending for the aforesaid reason, as we find that liberty to move an application for vacation of interim order was given by the learned Single Judge earlier also which was affirmed in the special appeal. The respondents, in fact, had moved an application for vacation of interim order, and according to the counsel for the appellants, the said very application was listed in the cause list. If the interim order has been vacated by the learned Single Judge by giving reasons, then this court would not interfere on the alleged apparent typographical error in the order. Of course, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if this order requires any interference by this Court, only then any interference can be made. The controversy is regarding the regularization of the appellants into service of the Warehouse Corporation, because they have rendered more than nine years of service. The questions regarding resolution said to have been passed by the Corporation for regularizing their services and the orders passed by the Government rejecting the request of the Corporation to regularize these persons, are the questions, which are engaging attention in writ petition, and still remain to be decided by the writ Court. In the meantime, since the interim order which was granted on 7.1.09 has been vacated, therefore, the present special appeals have been filed. At this juncture, Sri Anil Tiwari, has very fairly and candidly stated that (i) there is one writ petition already pending at Allahabad, in which an interim order is continuing and, therefore, selection process cannot be initiated unless some orders are passed at Allahabad; (ii) he has instructions to say that the present appellants or the petitioners who are still in service, though on daily wage/contract basis, would not be removed from service for the simple reason that their request for regularization has been turned down by the State Government or that the interim order has been vacated. He says that looking to the exigency of work, there may be requirement of more workers. However, since the writ petition has been directed to be decided at an early date, the appellants or similarly situated persons would not be ousted from service till the decision of the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid statement given by the learned counsel for the Corporation, we do not find that any controversy remains to be decided in special appeals. We, therefore, though do not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which also directs the petitions to be listed on 20.7.09, but we request the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petitions on the date fixed and if it is not possible for any reason whatsoever, the same be decided at an early date. Office is directed to keep the writ petitions on board till they are finally disposed of. In view of the submission made by Sri Anil Tiwari that the order under appeal has been passed on the application for vacation of the order, we feel that the correction application moved before the learned Single Judge for correction of the said order has lost its efficacy. We have not addressed ourselves on the issues raised in the writ petition and any observation made in this regard, would not be binding upon the learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petitions, which shall be decided at an early date as already observed. The special appeals are disposed of accordingly.