IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation App. No. 9031 of 2008 Recall Application No. 1502 of 2008 In Special Appeal No. 79 of 2006 Union of India & another. .……… Appellants Versus Goving Singh Bisht. ………. Respondent Mr. Vikas Pandey, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for the appellants / applicants. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Delay Condonation App. No. 9031 of 2008: For the reasons stated, the Application is allowed. The delay in filing the Recall Application is hereby condoned. Recall Application No. 1502 of 2008 shall be treated to have been filed within time. Recall Application No. 1502 of 2008: Vide Judgment dated 20th February, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1344 (SB) of 2002, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, had issued a mandamus upon the respondents therein to consider and decide the claim of disability pension of the writ petitioner as admissible to him in accordance with law. Against this Judgment, the appellants filed Special Appeal No. 79 of 2006 in this Court. When the Special Appeal came up for orders on 3rd November, 2008, the Bench was apprised and informed that disability pension had since been granted in favour of the respondent by the appellants. On hearing this, the Bench was of the view that since the grant of disability pension amounted to implementation of the Court order, nothing survived in the appeal, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. In the present Application filed for recalling of the aforesaid order, the appellants / applicants have taken a stand that, by implementing the Court order, the challenge to its validity and legality was not wiped out. We do not agree with this contention. We have seen the Communication dated 3rd September, 2008 whereby the disability pension had been granted in favour 2 of the respondent. The order granting the disability pension is unequivocal as well as unconditional. It does mention, in specific terms, about the implementation of the Court order. Once the appellants themselves implemented the Court order, it is not open to them to raise or maintain any challenge thereto at any subsequent stage. It was always open to the appellants not to implement the Court order, especially when the Special Appeal was pending in this Court, the same having been admitted and, more especially, the Division Bench in the Special Appeal on 29th August, 2007 had stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is very funny as well as ridiculous on the part of the appellants now to contend that they intended to challenge the legality of the order of the learned Single Judge despite they having unequivocally and unconditionally implemented the same, even after having obtained a stay from this Court against its implementation. The Recall Application is rejected. (V.K. Bist, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 19.03.2009 19.03.2009 G