Narendra Nath Sinha v. State of U.P. and Ors.

It is not necessary to go into the comroversy raised in this appeal D since the contesting respondents have already retired by attaining superan· nuation. This Court while granting leave and admitting the appeal slated thus: "Status quo pending disposal of the appeal as of today in the matter of reversion as a consequence of the judgment of the High Court. Future promotions will be subject to the result of the appeal." In the judgment of the High Court in first part in paragraph 46, it was stated thus : 1982 "We would further like to clarify that any order that may be passed in these writ petitions should not effect any confirmation or sub­ stantive promotion made prior to the filing of the writ petitions." G In the ultimate paragraph of the judgment a contrary opinion was ex­ pressed stating that any action taken prior to November 29, 1979 was illegal. It is stated by the appellant that on his promotion as Executive Engineer on July 12, 1979 though initially on ad hoc basis, he was con­ . H firmed and regularised as an Executive Engineer on June 30, 1980. The N.N. SINHA v. STATE 235 writ petition case No. 2447 of 1980 ~=e to be filed by V.N. Mittal on A September 29, 1980. In view of the above facts and in view of the directions issued by this Court the consequence would be that the status quo which the appellant had prior to the other passed by this Court, would continue. The rights accrued to the appellant prior to the date of the filing of the writ petition would continue to be available to him, since his promotion B and confirmation as such was not quashed. The Government, therefore, would work out the rights of the appellant accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P. Appeal disposed.