/2023 INSC 0777/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31526 OF 2017 
JAGPAL SINGH      …PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                    …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Shri   Parthiv   K.   Goswami,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the
petitioner and Shri Tanmaya Agarwal, learned counsel for the
respondents were heard on merits.
2. Under  challenge  is   the   judgment   and   order   dated   04.09.2017
passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   whereby   the
Special   Appeal   was   allowed   after   setting   aside   the   judgment
12023INSC777

and   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated   31.10.2012
allowing the Writ Petition No.25718 of 2011.
3. The   result   of   the   impugned   order   is   that   the   services   of   the
petitioner who was appointed as the temporary Collection Peon
stood terminated, notwithstanding, the subsequent promotion
earned by him on the post of Collection Amin on the strength
of   his   continued   working   under   the   interim   order   passed   by
the High Court. 
4. The   petitioner   was   appointed   as   a   temporary   Collection   Peon
on  01.02.1996. The  appointment  letter  clearly  stated  that  the
services   of   the   petitioner   were   purely   temporary   and   that   he
could   be   removed   without   any   notice.   The   services   of   the
petitioner   as   temporary   Collection   Peon   were   terminated
simpliciter   vide   order   dated   30.11.1998   with   one   month’s
notice and salary & allowances.
5. Aggrieved   by   the  termination   of   his   services,  petitioner  filed   a
Writ   Petition   No.42216   of   1998   (Jagpal   Singh   vs.   District
Magistrate,   Etawah   and   others).   The   said   Writ   Petition   was
2

dismissed on 15.07.1999 by the learned Single Judge  in limine
with   the   observation   that   since   the   petitioner   is   purely   a
temporary   appointee,   as   is   evident   from   his   appointment
letter, he has no right to the post.
6. Not satisfied by the above decision, petitioner preferred Letters
Patent Appeal i.e. Special Appeal No.740 of 1999 and obtained
an   interim   order   on   19.08.1999   staying   the   operation   of   the
order   of   termination   of   his   services.   The   petitioner,   on   the
strength   of   the   aforesaid   order,   continued   to   function   as
temporary   Collection   Peon.   In   view   of   his   continued   service,
ignoring   the   fact   that   his   services   actually   stood   terminated
and   that   he   was   working   only   under   an   interim   order,   the
petitioner   was   promoted   on   05.10.2009   on   the   post   of
Collection   Amin   by   the   District   Selection   Committee.   The
Special   Appeal   was   unfortunately   dismissed   in   default   on
25.08.2009.   Consequent   to   the   dismissal   of   the   Special
Appeal,   a   detailed   order   was   passed   by   the   Sub­Divisional
Magistrate,   Bharthana,   on   01.03.2011   notifying   that   as   the
services   of   the   petitioner   had   been   terminated   and   the   said
3

order   has   attained   finality   with   the   dismissal   of   the   Special
Appeal,   consequently   the   promotion   of   the   petitioner   was
meaningless. Accordingly, petitioner stood reverted to the post
of   Collection   Peon   and   his   service   also   stood   determined   as
earlier. 
7. It may not be out of context to mention here that the petitioner
after   the   dismissal   of   the   Special   Appeal,   for   want   of
prosecution,   applied   for   recall   of   the   order   and   the   Special
Appeal   was   restored   on   11.03.2011   but   again   it   was   got
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.04.2011. In short,
the   Special   Appeal   arising   from   the   Writ   Petition   challenging
the   termination   of   the   petitioner   stood   finally   dismissed   with
no   relief   to   the   petitioner.   The   services   of   the   petitioner   as
temporary Collection Peon accordingly stood determined as far
back   as   on   30.11.1998   which   order   became   final   and
conclusive.
8. Consequent   to   the   order   of   the   Sub­Divisional   Magistrate
dated   01.03.2011   notifying   termination   of   the   services   of   the
petitioner   in   the   wake   of   the   earlier   termination   order
4

becoming final, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.25718 of 2011
challenging   the   same.   The   said   Writ   Petition   was   allowed   by
the   learned   Single   Judge   vide   judgment   and   order   dated
31.10.2012   observing   that   the   promotion   granted   to   the
petitioner was not hedged by any condition, therefore, once the
petitioner   had   been   promoted   from   the   temporary   post   of
Collection   Peon   to   the   post   of   Collection   Amin,   his   services
were not liable to be treated as determined.
9. The   aforesaid   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   was   assailed
by   the   State   of   UP   &   others   by   means   of   Special   Appeal
Defective   No.392   of   2013   and   the   same   has   been   allowed   by
the order  impugned dated 04.09.2017 on the ground that the
learned   Single   Judge   had   failed   to   appreciate   that   the
continuance   of   the   petitioner   as   temporary   Collection   Peon
and his consequential promotion as Collection Amin was only
on   the   basis   of   the   interim   order   operating   in   the   Special
Appeal though the services of the petitioner stood terminated.
The   court   further   observed   that   once   the   services   of   the
petitioner   stood   terminated   on   30.11.1998   and   the   Writ
5

Petition  challenging   the same had  been  dismissed as also  the
Special   Appeal   thereof,   the   petitioner   went   out   of   service   and
the   very   continuance   of   service   of   the   petitioner   on   the
strength   of   interim   order   which   merged   in   the   final   order   of
dismissal of Special Appeal, lost all significance. 
10. The   submission   of   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   petitioner
Shri Parthiv K. Goswami is  that the person who has continued
for so long, may be in view of the interim order operating in his
favour,   cannot   be   thrown   out   in   a   cursory   manner   when   a
conscious   decision   had   been   taken   to   promote   him   as
Collection Amin. Defending the impugned order, Shri Tanmaya
Agarwal,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   had   submitted
that   once   the   very   foundation   on   which   the   petitioner   was
working   had   gone,   his   continuance   in   service   and
consequential promotion  is  of no effect. The petitioner  has  no
right   to   continue   in   service   either   as   Collection   Amin   or   as
temporary Collection Peon after his termination was held to be
valid and was not interfered with by the courts. 
6

11. The   facts,   as   narrated   above,   clearly   establish   that   the
petitioner   was   appointed   simply   as   a   temporary   Collection
Peon and his services were determined simpliciter within three
years vide order dated 30.11.1998. The said order, terminating
the services of the petitioner, is final and conclusive. It has not
been   disturbed   by   any   court   of   law.   However,   the   petitioner
continued   to   function   as   temporary   Collection   Peon   on   the
strength   of   an   interim   order   passed   in   Special   Appeal   which
was   ultimately   dismissed.   Therefore,   any   promotion   given   to
the petitioner consequent to his continuance in service on the
strength   of   the   interim   order   would   automatically   fall   to   the
ground   once   the   Special   Leave   Petition   is   dismissed   and   the
termination order attains finality.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the
opinion   that   the   view   expressed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court   in   allowing   the   appeal,   is   well   within   the   four
corners   of   law   which   order   does   not   suffer   from   any   material
illegality   or   irregularity.   The   Division   Bench   has   rightly   set
aside   the   judgment   and   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge
7

dated   31.10.2012   by   which   the   writ   petition   was   allowed   in
complete   ignorance   of   the   fact   that   the   services   of   the
petitioner   stood   determined   long   back   and   that   the   petitioner
is   not   entitled   to   any   benefit   on   the   basis   of   his   subsequent
promotion   which   automatically   falls   with   the   termination
attaining  finality. Accordingly, we find no merit in the  Special
Leave   Petition   and   the   same   is   dismissed,   however,   the
respondents shall not initiate any recovery of the salary drawn
by the petitioner for the period he has actually worked.
……………………….. J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
……………………….. J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 29, 2023. 
8