- (1.) SHRI Manik Sinha, learned Counsel, has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 5 and Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel, has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party No. 6.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that though the order passed in original application was affirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 533 (SB) of 2009 and finally the Special Leave Petition filed against that order was also dismissed but the petitioner has a right to challenge the judgment in Original application passed by the Lucknow Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal because it was passed ex -parte and contrary to the ratio of a judgment of Supreme Court reported in, 2004 (100) FLR 6 (Khetrabasi Biswal v. Ajaya Kumar Baral and Ors.). In the said judgment while elucidating the principles of natural justice, the Apex Court has held that the procedural law as well as substantive law, both, mandates that in the absence of a necessary party, the order passed by a Court would be a nullity and would not have a binding effect. In such a case, the matter may be heard after affording opportunity to necessary parties. Thus, he filed a review petition before the Tribunal but that too was dismissed. Now, he is before this Court in this writ petition asking for stay of operation of the impugned judgment passed in original application, which has attained finality in view of dismissal order of Special Leave Petition passed by the Supreme Court. Petitioner's arguments do not appear to be totally devoid of force but in view of the order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16219 of 2009, it would not be appropriate for us to consider passing an interim order.
(3.) ADMIT the writ petition.;