The Allahabad High Court last week imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the State for the unexplained delay of more than 3 decades in filing its counter affidavit and for failing to bring to the Court's notice the non-compliance with an interim order, while dismissing the writ petition on merits.

Justice Garima Prashad observed:

"The State cannot avoid responsibility for this lapse merely because the petitioner has failed to establish his substantive claim. The prolonged delay deprived the Court of timely assistance from the authorities concerned and allowed the issue of compliance with the interim order to remain unresolved until the petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be compensated by way of costs, though not by the grant of service benefits to which he has established no legal right".

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee to the post of 'Sahyogi' in the Bahraich District Cooperative Bank Limited pursuant to orders dated 07.09.1993 and 22.12.1993, both of which described the appointment as wholly temporary. The appointment was for a period not exceeding 89 days, terminable without prior notice and subject to the post being filled through regular selection.

The respondents pleaded that the officer who issued the appointment had merely been authorised to look after the work of the Secretary/General Manager after the latter's death and was not competent to make the appointment.

The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, invoked Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 to annul the authorisation and the appointment orders issued under it, following which the Bank relieved the petitioner from service in March 1994.

On 02.05.1994, the High Court kept the impugned order in abeyance and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to work and pay him salary. According to the petitioner, the direction was never complied with.

The Court held that the petitioner had acquired no enforceable right to continue beyond the stipulated period, as nothing on record showed that his tenure had been extended or his service regularised. Even if no regularly selected candidate filled the post, the Court held that a time-bound temporary appointment would not thereby become permanent.

His grievance that the Deputy Registrar had neither called for reconsideration under the proviso to Section 128 nor heard him would not by itself entitle him to relief, the writ of certiorari being discretionary and not to be issued where quashing the impugned action would merely revive an appointment that could not be sustained or had already lapsed by efflux of time.

On the interim order, the Court held that the respondents' failure to comply with it was unsatisfactory but could not advance the petitioner's substantive claim.

"Nevertheless, an interim order is intended to preserve the subject matter of the proceedings pending final adjudication. It cannot create or enlarge a substantive right that the petitioner did not otherwise possess."

The petitioner discharged no duties after March 1994, while the first affidavit on the record specifically complaining of non-compliance was filed only in 2017. He also attained the age of superannuation on 20.04.2026; therefore, no direction permitting him to join or continue in the post could be implemented.

"An appointment limited to 89 days cannot form the basis of a claim for salary, pension or other service benefits until the date of superannuation merely because the writ petition remained pending."

The Court recorded that opposite party nos. 3 and 4, whose actions formed the basis of the impugned orders, filed their counter affidavit only after further orders were passed in 2025, despite the Court's direction dated 02.05.1994 to file the same within six weeks.

No explanation was offered for the delay of more than three decades. The Court also noted that the non-compliance with its interim direction was never brought to its notice.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on merits and the interim order was discharged.

However, having regard to the unexplained delay on the part of the State authorities and their failure to bring the non-compliance with the interim order to the notice of the Court, costs of Rs. 1,00,000 were imposed on the State. Opposite party nos. 3 and 4 were directed to ensure that the amount is paid to the petitioner within six weeks.

Counsel for Petitioner: S.C. Sitapuri, A.M. Tripathi, Sachichida Nand Shukla

Counsel for Respondents: P.K. Khare, A.R. Khan, Neeraj Chaurasia, Pawan Kumar Mishra