Allahabad High Court orders State to pay ₹1 lakh costs after authorities left an interim order unimplemented and delayed filing their response for over 30 years

The petitioner was appointed as a Class IV “Sahyogi” by orders dated 7 September and 22 December 1993. Both orders described the appointment as temporary, for no more than 89 days, terminable without notice, and subject to regular selection.

The respondents alleged that the appointment was made without lawful selection and by an unauthorised officer. The Deputy Registrar annulled the authorisation and appointment orders under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and the Bank relieved the petitioner in March 1994.

An interim order dated 2 May 1994 directed that he be permitted to work and paid salary, but he alleged that it was not complied with.

The petitioner challenged the annulment procedure and sought reinstatement and monetary relief; by the time judgment was delivered, he had reached superannuation.

1. Whether the petitioner’s temporary appointment conferred an enforceable right to continue in service or claim salary and service benefits after its stipulated tenure.

2. Whether the alleged failure to follow the reconsideration procedure under the proviso to Section 128, or to afford a hearing, required the impugned orders to be set aside.

3. Whether non-compliance with the interim order independently entitled the petitioner to salary or other service benefits.

Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 authorises the Registrar to annul a committee resolution or cancel an officer’s order that contravenes the Act, rules, or society bye-laws; its proviso requires the relevant body or officer to be asked to reconsider the decision within a specified period of at least fifteen days before an order is made.

A temporary appointment expressly limited in duration does not, without an extension or regularisation by the competent authority, create a right to continue beyond that term.

The discretionary writ jurisdiction need not be exercised where setting aside an order would revive an unsustainable or time-expired appointment, as recognised in *Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel*, (2012) 9 SCC 310.

An appointment made without required authority or approval may be a nullity, and absence of a prior hearing does not necessarily require its restoration, as explained in *Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh*, (2018) 15 SCC 463.

An interim order cannot create or enlarge a substantive right otherwise unavailable to the claimant.

The appointment orders expressly limited the petitioner’s tenure to 89 days, and no extension, regularisation, or later competent appointment was proved; the asserted absence of a regular appointee did not alter those terms.

Although the record did not establish that the reconsideration procedure under Section 128 had been followed, setting aside the impugned action would not give the petitioner a right to remain in a post after his temporary appointment had expired. The Court therefore found it unnecessary to decide whether the appointment was void from inception.

The interim direction was binding while operative, but could not support decades of salary or service benefits where the petitioner had not worked after March 1994 and had not established an extended appointment.

His superannuation also made a direction to rejoin or continue in service impracticable.

However, it imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the State, payable to the petitioner within six weeks, because the State authorities had filed their counter-affidavit only after prolonged delay and had not brought the interim-order non-compliance to the Court’s attention.