AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ
Heard Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State and Shri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.6-writ petitioner.
The learned Single Judge by order dated 12.12.2025 passed in WPSS No.1988/2025 impugned in the present appeal has stayed the operation of the termination order impugned in the writ petition and has directed the Management to permit the petitioner (respondent no.6 herein) to discharge his duties and has further directed for release of his salary.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the validity of the termination order is still to be examined in the writ petition, therefore, the direction for release of salary amounts to grant of a final relief. He contends that the petitioner has not been working since 2022 for various reasons and, therefore, the order of learned Single Judge, which is only an interim order but amounts to grant of a final relief, has resulted in serious prejudice to the appellants.
Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.6 fairly states that the order of learned Single Judge should be read as a direction for release of current salary only. He submits that, if so construed, the order cannot be said to have resulted in grant of any final relief. He further submits that respondent no.6 has tried to submit his joining but the Management is preventing him from joining and is also not paying salary.
Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants would not prevent respondent no.6 from joining and would also pay his current salary in such an event.
Having regard to the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the instant appeal with the clarification that the order of learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2025 in relation to direction for release of salary would be construed as direction for payment of current salary only and the Management would not prevent the respondent no.6 from joining the Institution in pursuance of order of learned Single Judge.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.