- (1.) HEARD Sri Hanuman Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for appellants and Sri Ranjit Saxena for respon dent.
(2.) IN this appeal filed by State of U. P, Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, Chief Engineer, Tube-well and Irrigation Department, Superintending Engineer Tube-well region, Gorakhpur and Executive Engineer, Tubewell Construction Division, Gorakhpur and judgment/order dated 24-11-92 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26540 of 1990 is assailed. On the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the core question that in our view arises for determination in this case is whether by order dated 23-10- 89 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) reinstate ment of the writ petitioner/respondent in service was directed. The learned single judge, as appears from the impugned judg ment/order, proceeded on the assumption that reinstatement was directed by the aforementioned order. The relevant obser vation in the order reads: "in pursuance thereof, the petitioner made a representation to the State Government. It ap pears that elaborate enquiry was done and conse quently order dated 23-10-1989 contained in An nexure-7 was passed directing reinstatement of the petitioner. " The thrust of the submissions of the learned standing counsel is that no order of reinstatement was made in favour of the petitioner. INdeed the portion of the order dated 23-10-89 directing reinstatement was scored out, instead it was directed that the matter of reinstatement may be considered. These corrections have not been incor porated in the document filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition by the writ petitioner/respondent. Illustrating the point in Paragraph 13 of the counter- af fidavit it was specifically stated in the said paragraph that no order of reinstatement in service was passed in favour of the petitioner. Sri Ranjeet Saxena, on the other hand, submits that the position was never denied by the opposite parties-appellants that the order of reinstatement in service was passed in favour the petitioner. He went to the extent of saying that some interpola tion has been done in the order. On the pleadings of the parties noted above, since the opposite parties/ap pellants had joined issue on the question, it was necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute that the question whether any order of reinstatement was passed on 23-10-1989 was considered and a specific finding recorded thereon. The learned single judge, on the other hand, proceeded on the as sumption that an order for reinstatement existed. In the circumstances, it is our considered view that the matter should be remitted to the learned single Judge for con sideration of the question.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed, judgment/order dated 24-11-1992 is set aside and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26540 of 1990 is remitted to the learned Single Judge for a fresh disposal in accord ance with law in the light of the observations made above. Since it is an old case it will be listed before the appropriate Bench on 24th February, 1997. Appeal allowed. .;