Both parties are at liberty to file additional pleadings and documents before the High Court.Before us, several legal companytentions have been raised by Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the State and also companyntered by Mr. Rohan Thanavi, learned companynsel for the respondent.
We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court and restore the Civil Misc.
A perusal of the said order would show that there was absolutely numberdiscussion by the Bench as to why the said direction in regard to the petitioners pension was issued.
In our view, Regulation 15.05 of the Statute of the University is also required to be companysidered for determining the claim of the respondent herein.
Aggrieved by the said order, the State of U.P. ors preferred special leave petition before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.9.2000 on the ground of delay in approaching this Court.
In our opinion, the matter required detailed investigation with reference to Section 33 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 and also with reference to the General Order issued under reference number2148/Pandrah/15/1983 46 14 /83 dated 24.12.1983.
In view of the remittal order number passed by us, we set aside the order dated 31.3.2003 passed in Civil Misc.
arising out of SLP C No.21143 of 2003 Dr. AR .
The order, in our opinion, is number speaking.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 31.3.2003 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.9346 of 2001.
Writ Petition number9346 of 2001.
The special leave petition was number disposed of by this Court on merit.
Writ Petition number9346 of 2001 and request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition within six months from the date of production of companyy of order of this Court by either party.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
In the impugned order also, except adopting the reason given by the order dated 7.12.1999, numberother reason was given by the Division Bench.
