SURESH LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.6 - appellant, aggrieved by an interim order dated 17.08.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20372 of 2009, has preferred this Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has stayed the order of Authorised Controller, whereby he had recalled the order of suspension and directed for payment of full salary. While doing so, the learned Single Judge has observed that after enquiry recommendation was sent for termination of service of respondent No.6 in April 2007, but no decision has been taken instead direction for payment of salary and revoking the order of suspension have been made. Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge proceeded on erroneous assumption that there was recommendation for termination of service of respondent No.6 and hence the learned Single erred in passing the impugned order. He further submits that writ petitioner has no locus to challenge the said order and as such, the interim order passed by learned Single Judge is illegal. We are of the opinion that nothing prevents the appellant herein to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of the learned Single Judge and seek vacation of the interim order. We are of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for interference in this Appeal. Appeal stands dismissed, accordingly.