HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1207 OF 2009 Dated: 17-11-2009 Between: The Government of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Director General CRPF, Block No.1, C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi –110003 and two others ... APPELLANTS AND V.B. Srivastava and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1207 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order, whereby interim order which had been passed on 04-09-2008 in WPMP No.24871 of 2008 in Writ Petition 19084 of 2008 has been confirmed. 2. Punishment had been imposed upon respondent No.1 by way of 100% cut in the pension. The said order of punishment has been challenged in the petition and by an interim order, the learned single Judge has directed to pay 75% of the pension during the pendency of the petition. 3. In the course of hearing of this appeal, it was suggested to the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellants that as the punishment imposed upon respondent No.1 was rightly found to be harsh by the learned single Judge, the appellant – authorities should reconsider the quantum of punishment on their own. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellants has communicated the same to the appellants and accordingly, the appellant – authorities have also communicated to the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the question with regard to quantum of punishment is being reconsidered by them. It has been submitted that the final decision would take around two months or so and, therefore, hearing be adjourned. 4. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, we do not entertain the appeal at this stage for the reason that the quantum of punishment imposed upon respondent No.1 is being reconsidered and as and when final decision is taken with regard to the quantum of punishment, the same will be placed before the learned single Judge so that at the time of hearing of the aforestated petition, the learned single Judge can consider the fresh order which might be passed by the appellant – authorities. 5. In the circumstances and more particularly looking to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is quite reasonable and just and, therefore, we do not entertain the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs, without expressing any opinion on the subject. 6. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2518 of 2009, filed by the appellants for interim relief, is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17-11-2009 ks