Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri D.N. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
(2.) AT the outset it has been pointed out by Sri D.N. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel that the present incumbents on the posts of opposite parties have not been arrayed. The Court is not inclined to accept such objection in view of the facts and circumstances of this case mentioned hereinafter. The Writ Petition No. 38533 of 1999, filed by the applicant was allowed vide judgment and order dated 5.11.1999. The termination order was quashed. The writ had been allowed relying upon another order of this Court in the case of Mahendra Nath Tewari v. State of U.P. and Ors. Writ Petition No. 13710 of 1999. Further the writ petition of Mahendra Nath Tewari was allowed relying upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. Writ Petition No. 46061 of 1993. Thus in effect the applicant was entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Vijay Bahadur Singh. The operative portion of the order dated 26.9.1997, passed in the case of Vijay Bahadur Singh is quoted hereunder: The writ petition is allowed. The order of termination of petitioner's services dated 14.11.1973 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full benefits of his service with retrospective effect. There is no order as to costs.
(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order the State of U.P. filed special appeal. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 15.11.2002 dismissed all the special appeals filed by the State of U.P. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, the State of U.P. preferred petitions for special leave to appeals before the Apex Court. With regard to the applicant's case the special leave petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 7.5.2003.;