R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) Shri Shitla Prasad Mishra, the sole respondent in this appeal, was engaged as a labourer on daily wage basis in 1982 by the Registry of this Court. It appears that he was involved in a criminal account of which he did not discharge his duties in this Court from 18-12-1990. As the respondent ceased to work from 18-12-1990 the Registrar of this Court by order dated 7-1-1991 disengaged him. After his acquittal in the criminal case he moved an application dated 7-9-1992 before the Registrar for his engagement as daily wager. According to the respondent no order was passed by this Court even though he moved another application in that connection. The respondent ultimately filed a writ petition before this Court, which has been allowed by the learned single Judge holding that the respondent is entitled to be re-instead in service because he was removed from service on account of his involvement in a criminal case. The learned Judge accordingly directed this Court to re-instate the petitioner-respondent in service with all consequential benefits. Learned Judge also issued direction for his confirmation in service with effect from the date on which persons, who were engaged as daily wager alongwith him in 1982, were confirmed. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judge this Court has filed this appeal. While entertaining the appeal this Court also granted interim order staying the operation of the impugned judgment of the learned Judge.
(2.) We have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant and Sri R.N. Singh for the petitioner-respondent.
(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition filed by the respondent this Court did not file any counter-affidavit inspite of the orders passed to that effect by the learned Single Judge. But after the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Judge an affidavit containing necessary facts in support of the stay application, has been filed alongwith the Special appeal. Sri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, has raised preliminary objection to the effect that it is not open to the appellant to bring new facts on record of the appeal when the same were not placed before the leaned single Judge by filling counter-affidavit. Normally new facts are not to be placed on record of the appeal by any of the parties, except with the permission of the appellate court. It is, however, not necessary to go into this question as we have summoned the original record from the Registry and have examined the same in order to ascertain the correct position.;