SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 6591 of 2000. [Arising out of SLP(C) No.14592/2000]. D/d. 17.11.2000.

State of U.P. & Ors. - Appellants

Versus

Ved Pal Singh - Respondent

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 136 - Passing of interim order - Causing of delay - Effect of - Grant of interim order after 6 years of issuing Rule Nisi - Grant of order is improper - Order of dismissal from service - Stay of order of dismissal by Tribunal - Respondent not in service from 1992, has to be reinstate - Circumstances of case not justify passing the interim order at that stage - Interim order neither just nor equitable nor in consonance with the principles with respect to grant of interim orders - Interim order is liable to be set aside.

[Para 3]

ORDER

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. - Leave is granted.

2. The State is in appeal against the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.1433/1994 on April 4, 2000. Though this Court does not normally interfere with the interim orders passed by the High Courts, it is a fit case which warrants our interference on the peculiar facts of this case.

3. The respondent was dismissed from service on June 4, 1979. On a challenge against the said order before the U.P.Public Service Tribunal, the said order of dismissal from service was stayed. Eventually his petition came to be dismissed on January 15, 1994. The respondent assailed the validity of the said order of the Tribunal before the High Court in the aforementioned writ petition. No interim order was granted on the writ petition which was filed in March, 1994 and in our view rightly. After six years of filing of the writ petition the impugned interim order was passed on April 4, 2000 while listing the case to be heard in the month of August, 2000. We are unable to appreciate the urgency to pass interim order after about six years of issuing Rule Nisi, when the High Court was inclined to hear the matter on merits in August 2000. The circumstances of the case did not justify passing the impugned interim order at that stage. The consequence of the said order is that the respondent who was out of service from 1994, has to be reinstated pending disposal of writ petition which was to be heard in August 2000. This is neither just nor equitable nor is in consonance with the principles of granting interim orders. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the impugned interim order.

There shall be no order as to costs.

.