HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 685 of 2023 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.12.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 4188 of 2000 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was disposed of with the direction to the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent for the payment of post retiral dues, as admissible to him within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. 2. The appeal is barred by 243 days. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with an affidavit has been filed seeking condonation of delay. 3. The application is not opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. For the reasons indicated in the application supported by the affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 21.12.1999 passed by the appellants whereby the respondent was visited with the penalty of reversion to the post of Junior Clerk and adverse entry was ordered to be recorded in his character roll. 6. When the writ petition came up before this Court, by order dated Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : V.P. Nag (S.C.) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amitabh Misra, Amitabh Misra, Deo Raj Singh, Shrish Kumar Gaur State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secy. Department of Finance Govt. U.P. Lucknow and others .....Appellant(s) Kailash Shanker .....Respondent(s) 08.08.2000, the order of punishment dated 21.12.1999 was ordered to remain stayed till the next date. 7. It appears that the order continued till the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on noticing the fact that the respondent has retired w.e.f. 30th November, 2015 and he continued to hold the post of Assistant Accountant, and the fact that the order dated 21.12.1999 had remained stayed, disposed of the writ petition with the direction as noticed hereinbefore. 8. Counsel for the appellants made submissions that the direction given by the learned Single Judge for payment of post retiral dues, in the circumstances of the case is not justified inasmuch as only on account of grant of interim order, it cannot be assumed that the order imposing punishment of reversion, came to an end and therefore the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 9. Counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that against the order impugned, the respondent had also filed Special Appeal (Defective) No. 244 of 2025 seeking relief for setting aside of the order dated 21.12.1999, however, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the grievance in the pending Special Appeal filed by the State. 10. We have considered the submissions and have perused the material available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the challenge was laid to the order dated 21.12.1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby the respondent was visited with penalty of reversion to the post of Junior Clerk and adverse entry was ordered to be recorded in his character roll. 12. Though in the challenge laid, the order of punishment was stayed by the Court on 08.08.2000, pursuant to which the respondent continued to hold the post of Assistant Accountant and retired from the said post on superannuation on 30.11.2015, however, merely on that count, the directions given by learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition and requiring the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent for payment of post retiral dues could not have been passed. SPLAD No. 685 of 2023 2 13. SPLAD No. 685 of 2023 2 13. The validity of the order dated 21.12.1999 was required to be examined as merely on passing of the interim order, the order dated 21.12.1999 does not get wiped off, in fact with the disposal of the writ petition and no order pertaining to validity of the order dated 21.12.1999 having been passed, the said order would in fact revive again and the relief which was allegedly granted by the learned Single Judge, would not be available to the respondent and therefore, the respondent himself was justified in questioning the validity of the order impugned. 14. In view of the above fact situation, the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 4188 of 2000 cannot be sustained. 15. The appeal is allowed. The order dated 05.12.2022 is set aside. The matter is reminded back to the learned Single Judge to hear and decide the writ petition afresh. 16. Looking to the fact that the petition pertains to the year 2000, it is expected that the matter shall be heard and decided with utmost expedition. November 18, 2025 Asheesh/RK/- SPLAD No. 685 of 2023 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench