1
Court No. 24
Writ Petition No. 1182 (SS) of 2008
Roop Chandra Sharma ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ... Opposite parties
---------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard Mr. Prem Shanker, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Anil Saran, learned Standing Counsel.
Undisputed facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner
was appointed on the post of Mate in the year 1984 and
subsequently, the petitioner was regularized on the post of Beldar
on 19.9.2000. While working on the said post, one Satya Pal has
filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18224 of 2006 at the Principal
Seat in which the petitioner of the instant writ petition has also
been impleaded. This Court at Allahabad disposed of the aforesaid
writ petition finally vide order dated 3.12.2007. The operative
portion of the said order is as under:-
“… In view of above, the writ petition is
disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall
submit fresh representation to the opposite party No.4
within a period of one month from th date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order and in case, such
representation is made, the Executive Engineer shall
consider and decide the representation of the
petitioner in accordance with law keeping in view the
observations made hereinabove by passing a
reasoned and speaking order expeditiously,
preferably, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While
deciding the case of the petitioner, it shall also be
incumbent to the Executive Engineer to provide
opportunity to the opposite party No.5 for compliance
of principles of natural justice keeping in view the long
tenure of the petitioner’s service on the post of Beldar
to grant promotion on the post of Meth from the date
juniors were promoted.”
A perusal of the impugned order, it reflects that no
opportunity of hearing has been afforded either to the petitioner
2
or to Mr. Satya Pal/opposite party No.6 and the said order has
been passed only on the basis of the records available with the
opposite parties and as such, the authority concerned, while
deciding the representation has not acted in the letter and spirit of
the judgment passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18224 of
2006, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 18.2.2008 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties
are directed to consider the representation of Satya Pal, strictly in
light of the judgment and order dated 3.12.2007 passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 18224 of 2006. It is made clear that notice
in writing be issued by the opposite parties to the petitioner and
Satya Pal, before taking decision on the representation moved by
Satya Pal/opposite party No.6. This exercise shall be completed
within a maximum period of three months from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Dt.11.1.2010
Lakshman/