1. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri K.S. Kushwaha, for the appellants; Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri H.P. Sahi, for the respondents 1 and 2; and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 to 7.

2. This intra court appeal is against an interim order dated 07.12.2022 of the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.14150 of 2022 putting in abeyance the order of State Government dated 19.01.2022 directing payment of salary to the appellants with effect from September 2011.

3. The order dated 19.01.2022 impugned in the writ petition was challenged by the respondents 1 and 2 primarily on the ground that services of the appellants were terminated in the year 2008; the order of termination required no approval under law and therefore it operated from the date of the order; that the order of termination was never challenged by the concerned employees in any court of law; that another set of employees were appointed against the posts earlier held by the appellants therefore, in such circumstances, the direction to pay salary was void.

4. Learned Single Judge upon consideration of the submissions and the grounds taken to challenge the order dated 19.01.2022, by the impugned interim order directed that till the next date of listing further disbursement of salary to the appellants under the impugned order shall remain in abeyance.

5. The order impugned has been questioned by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that the order of termination was passed by a Committee which held no jurisdiction as it was a mere usurper, therefore it was not accorded recognition and the payment of salary to the appellants continued upto the year 2011. Whereafter, on account of dispute the matter remained pending and, ultimately, on 31.10.2018 a decision was taken, after ascertaining from reports that the appellants had been serving the institution continuously and were paid salary till 2011, to pay them salary for the period during which salary was stopped. This order of 31.05.2018 was questioned by the respondents 1 and 2 by filing an objection and therefore the said order was kept in abeyance and ultimately the objections were rejected by the order dated 19.01.2022 and the direction for payment of salary was maintained. It is submitted that when a finding has been returned that the appellants had been regularly serving the institution and the services were not validly terminated, payment of salary to them cannot be faulted therefore, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

6. In response to the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that there is no requirement of an approval to the order of termination; that the entire exercise conducted by the State at its level was without jurisdiction. He submitted that the order of termination was impliedly approved by the order dated 27th August, 2010 as it approves payment of salary to the new set of employees appointed consequent to the termination of the appellants. He also submitted that though the order dated 27th August, 2010 was rescinded/recalled by order dated 31.05.2011 but the order dated 31.05.2011 was questioned in Writ-A No.49226 of 2011 and the said order was kept in abeyance. He submits that since the order dated 27th August, 2010 continues to stand, the appellants were not entitled to salary and therefore the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the interim order.

7. At this stage, we have been apprised by the learned counsel for the parties that inter se parties Writ-A Nos.58713 of 2010; 49226 of 2011; 9954 of 2011; 13581 of 2021; 33689 of 2010; 33905 of 2011; and 26023 of 2009 are pending.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that a triable issue has arisen for consideration before the learned Single Judge therefore, keeping in mind that the issue is engaging attention of this Court in various pending writ petitions noticed above, it would be apposite that all these writ petitions are clubbed and decided together so that no conflicting orders are passed and the State is not burdened with multiple claims in respect of payment of salary.

9. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, we deem it appropriate to direct that Writ-A No.14150 of 2022 shall be clubbed with Writ-A Nos.58713 of 2010; 49226 of 2011; 9954 of 2011; 13581 of 2021; 33689 of 2010; 33905 of 2011; and 26023 of 2009 so that all these writ petitions could be decided together. It is expected that the office shall club all these writ petitions and list the same before appropriate Bench in the week commencing 23rd January, 2023.

10. The appeal stands disposed off.