HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 458 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. Order on Delay Condonation Application 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. 3. The cause shown therein is sufficient. 4. The delay is only of 72 days which has been sufficiently explained. 5. Accordingly, we condone the delay. Order on Appeal 6. As regards the order impugned in the appeal, it has been passed in terms of another interim order passed in Writ-A No. 4513 of 2025 (Shailendra Kumar Tandon vs. State of U.P. & others). Against the said order passed in the case of Shailendra Kumar Tandon, the State filed an appeal bearing Special Appeal No. 340 of 2025 which has already been allowed on 04.11.2025 in the following terms:- Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Suman Pandey State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And Ors. .....Appellant(s) Sushil Kumar Singh Rathore .....Respondent(s) "5. We have perused the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 which also deals with death-cum-retirement gratuity and pension. We have also perused the provisions of the Civil Service Regulation, as applicable in this context. Certain Government Orders have been relied upon by the State which have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed today, which is taken on record. Although it is a moot point as to how far the Government Orders can be made applicable when there are specific Rules of 1961 on the subject, but as the learned Single Judge has not dwelt on these aspects and considering the fact that by interim order, without discussing the relevant issues as to the entitlement of the respondent to post retiral dues, such as pension and/ or gratuity, straightaway a direction has been given for payment of the dues mentioned in relief no.2 which veritably amounts to allowing the writ petition qua the said relief without any counter affidavit and without adjudication, which could not have been done at the interim stage, therefore, only for this reason we quash the impugned interim order dated 07.05.2025 to the extent it grants the said relief. 6. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 7. Counter affidavit has already been filed by the appellant/ State before the writ court. The respondent may file their rejoinder affidavit to the same. The writ petition bearing Writ A No. 4513 of 2025 shall now be listed before the writ court on December 09, 2025 amongst first ten cases. As retiral dues are involved, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the writ petition whether for grant of interim or final relief and pass orders as he may deem appropriate, as per law keeping in mind the aforesaid." 7. In view of the above, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we quash the same. 8. It shall be open for the learned Single Judge to consider the writ petition whether for grant of interim or final relief and pass orders as he may deem it appropriate, as per law keeping in mind the observations made in the above-quoted order. Writ-A No. 6054 of 2025 shall remain connected with Writ-A No. 4513 of 2025 and the order impugned shall not be treated as quashed to that extent. We have only quashed para 3 of the impugned judgement/order. SPLAD No. 458 of 2025 2 9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. November 25, 2025 Shravan SPLAD No. 458 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench