State of U.P.and others. vs Umesh Narain Dwivedi and another.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J.

An application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Having heard the learned Standing counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Pankaj Bajpai for the respondents, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application stands allowed.

By consent of the parties counsel, we have taken the appeal for hearing on merit.

The appellants aggrieved by the interim order dated 20.01.2009 passed in W.P. No. 586 (SS) of 2008 have preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.

By the said order, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents (appellants herein) to pay salary to the writ petitioners with effect from 6.03.2007.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that by way of interim order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition itself, which is not permissible in law.

Ordinarily, in intra Court appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, we do not interfere with the interim order. However, nothing prevents this Court to correct a manifest error in exercise of the power under the aforesaid Rules.

We are of the opinion that the direction for payment of salary by way of an interim order amounts to allowing the writ application and hence the learned Single Judge has committed manifest error in passing the aforesaid order. Hence the order impugned is not fit to be sustained.

As the matter pertains to the payment of salary, the learned Judge in seisin of the writ petition shall made endeavour to dispose of the writ petition at an early date.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside with the aforesaid observations.

Any observation made by us shall have no bearing on the merit of the writ petition.