- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in these intra-court appeals, preferred against similar nature interim orders, as passed in the pending writ petitions on 20.12.2012 and 15.02.2013.
(2.) IN the orders dated 20.12.2012 as passed in CWP Nos.6234/2012 and 6243/2012, the learned Single Judge noticed the fact that a co-ordinate Bench had passed an order directing the respondents to make payment of the salary to the concerned writ-petitioner and that in compliance thereof, though the payment of salary was ordered but the concerned Chief Medical & Health Officer simultaneously passed an order terminating the services of the writ petitioner concerned. The learned Single Judge found it expedient to interfere in such a course sought to be adopted and hence, ordered stay over operation and effect of the order impugned to the extent the services of the concerned petitioners were ordered to be terminated. Following the orders aforesaid, similar nature orders were passed on 15.02.2013 in CWP Nos. 422/2013 and 423/2013. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the appellants seeks to contend that the orders so passed rather give rise to incongruous position, particularly in view of the other orders passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench, including the order dated 01.12.2011 and then, the order dated 23.12.2011, as passed in a batch of petitions led by CWP No. 16813/2011. It is noticed from the orders sought to be questioned in these intra-court appeals that the related writ petitions have been ordered to be placed for final disposal.
(3.) IN response to the queries, the learned Government Counsel frankly submits that the petitions are indeed pending for final disposal before the learned Single Judge. In the totality of the circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the interim orders as passed in these matters, protecting the rights of the writ-petitioners during pendency of the petitions, cannot be said to be suffering from any fundamental flaw or fault as to warrant interference in intra-court appeals.;