1
Court No. 24
Writ Petition No. 10264 (SS) of 1990
Ram Bahadur Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ... Opposite parties
------------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel on
behalf of the respondents.
Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition claiming following main
reliefs:-
(1)To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties not to
terminate the services of the petitioner and also
commanding them to appoint the petitioner against one of
the existing vacancies of the Collection Amin in Tehsil Purwa,
district Unnao.
(2)To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to
consider his appointment against the regular vacancy and
also to pay him salary as payable to a regular employee and
other allowances each and every month.
(3)To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to
allow the petitioner to work and discharge his duties on the
post of Collection Amin against the existing vacancies as
referred to above and pay him his salary and usual
allowances regularly as and when the same falls due against
them.
This Court while admitting the writ petition on 9.10.90
passed an ad-interim order directing the opposite parties not to
terminate the services of the petitioner and consequently will allow him
to work,pay salary and allowances in accordance with law.
In September, 1995 Sub Divisional Officer, Purwa, District
Unnao filed a short counter affidavit indicating therein that by the order
dated 2.9.1995, the petitioner has been allowed to join as regular
collection amin and pursuant to the said order the petitioner has reported
2
for duties on 9.9.1995 and has been working as regular collection amin.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 19.9.1995 under some
wrong impression an statement was made by the earlier Counsel for the
petitioner for dismissing the writ petition as not pressed. He submits that
the petitioner though has been allowed to work but since 1995 has not
been paid annual increment and mandatory amount relating to insurance
is also not being deducted from the salary of the petitioner. Thus
irreparable loss is being caused to the petitioner for no fault on his part.
It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has moved an application
for recall of the order dated 19.9.2005 to secure the ends of justice so
that the petitioner may not suffer monetary loss, who is soon going to
attain the age of superannuation.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find no good ground
to recall the aforesaid order dated 19.9.1995 after a lapse of 14 long
years. Not allowing the benefit of annual increment and other benefits as
is available to similarly situated other regular employees gives rise to a
fresh cause of action and such a relief cannot be granted even if the
application for recall is allowed.
Accordingly, the application is rejected. However, liberty is granted
to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition for redessal of his grievances,
if he so desires.
21.1.2010
HM/-