HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 738 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 39968 of 2000 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners, in absence of their counsel, has been disposed of and on account of absence of counsel, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed on each petitioner to be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Ghaziabad. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that when the petition came up before the Court, as counsel for the petitioners had not received the intimation from the office, which is normally received, he could not appear before the Court when the matter was called out. 3. Submission has been made that as the cost of Rs. 10,000/- each has been imposed on the two petitioners, without depositing the cost the application seeking restoration of the writ petition is not being entertained by the office. 4. Further submission has been made that the disposal of the writ petition without adjudicating the same on merits, would be to great prejudice to the petitioners as they may not be granted the post retiral benefits unless the matter is adjudicated on merits and, therefore, the cost, as imposed, may be set aside and the writ petition may be restored to its original number. 5. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submission has been made that the learned Single Judge has indicated reasons for imposing cost and, therefore, there is no reason for any interference to be made with the said order. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dharamveer Singh Mahawal and another .....Appellant(s) District Basic Education Officer and 3 others .....Respondent(s) 6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 17.04.2000 and another order passed pursuant to the said order dated 17.04.2000. The petition was pending since the year 2000 and when the same came up for hearing on 16.05.2025, learned Single Judge noticed that the interim order was granted by the Court on 22.11.2000 whereby the order dated 17.04.2000 was stayed and as the petitioners have enjoyed the interim order and the petitioner no. 1 has attained the age of superannuation, considering the interim order and the age of the petitioners, the petition was disposed of. 8. Looking to the nature of challenge laid by the petitioners, only on account of the fact that the interim order was in currency for all these years and one of the petitioners has attained the age of superannuation, the petition could not have been disposed of by learned Single Judge as, unless the order dated 17.04.2000 is set aside, the appellants may be deprived of their retiral benefits, as submitted by counsel for the appellants. 9. It is well settled that in case the petitioners or counsel for the petitioners are/is not available when the matter is called out, the matter can only be dismissed for non prosecution and disposing of a matter and imposing cost for such non-appearance, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, does not appear to be warranted. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 11. The order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. 12. Writ-A No. 39968 of 2000 is restored to its original number. 13. It would be ensured by the petitioners/counsel for the petitioners that when the matter is next listed, the same would be duly attended. September 17, 2025 nd/AKShukla SPLAD No. 738 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad