AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 706 wordsAnil Kumar, J.—Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
In pursuance of the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by this Court earlier, opposite party No. 3 Sri Udai Veer Singh Tyagi, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Naloop Mandal, Moradabad is present today.
Initially, the applicant/Petitioner for redressal of his grievance approached U.P. Public Service Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 259 of 1990, dismissed vide order dated 29.3.1997.
Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner/applicant approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17068 of 1997 ( Ram Prakash v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and Ors.), disposed of vide order dated 15.5.2007.
Needless to mention herein that in the order dated 15.5.2007 while disposing of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17068 of 1997 had given the following directions:
However, it is also not disputed that the appointment of the Petitioner was only for a period of three years and having been appointed on 12.5.1988, he was terminated on 9.6.1989 i.e. after about one year and three months from the date of appointment. Even if we hold his termination to be illegal, the Petitioner would have been liable to continue in service for a further period of only one year and nine months and not beyond that. His appointment was on fixed salary Rs. 299/-.
Considering the fact that the Petitioner could have served the department only for a further period of about 21 months, in our view, the ends of justice and balance of interest of both the parties would be maintained, if the Petitioner is allowed 50% wages for the period of pre mature termination for the reason that admittedly he did not render any service to the department and therefore, would not be entitled for entire wages for the period he remained out of job. Since, the matter is pending for a long time, we direct that the Petitioner shall be entitled for 50% of the back wages which we quantify to Rs. 3150/- which shall be paid by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to the Petitioner within a period of three month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition, with the aforesaid direction, is allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.3.1997 as well as order of termination dated 9.6.1989 are set aside.
Thereafter, Petitioner again filed a Writ Petition No. 3529 (S/S) of 2008 ( Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and Ors.), disposed of vide order dated 4.7.2008 with the following directions:
Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to proceed to pass order keeping in view the judgment and order of this Court dated 15.5.2007, expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of a certified copy of this order and communicate the decision to the Petitioner.
In response to the earlier order passed by this Court, opposite party No. 3 Sri Udai Veer Singh Tyagi, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Naloop Mandal, Moradabad filed Supplementary counter affidavit inter alia stating therein in para 4 of the affidavit that order passed by writ Court, has been complied with and necessary orders dated 30.8.2008 and 19.4.2011 have been passed, copies of which have been annexed as Annexure SCA-1 and SCA-2 to the said affidavit.
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and on the basis of the same, learned Counsel for applicant submits that junior to the Petitioner retained in service whereas he was not allowed to discharge his duties.
From the perusal of the documents on record, it transpires that there is no directions to reinstate/allow the applicant to work and discharge his duty on the post in question earlier by means of order dated 15.5.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17068 of 1997 or by order dated 4.7.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 3529 (S/S) of 2008.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the applicant prays for and is allowed two weeks time to study the matter in this regard.
List after two weeks.
Personal appearance of opposite party No. 3 Sri Udai Veer Singh Tyagi, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Naloop Mandal, Moradabad is exempted until further orders of this Court.
