HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 54250 of 2015 Petitioner :- Dr. Mahesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Gopal Tripathi Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Respondent no.5, Sri Ravindra Singh appears to be in close nexus with the district authorities for whatever reason, it may be specifically those who are In-charge of the U.P.Cooperative Federation Ltd., Lucknow, which is a apex level Society.
Earlier Sri Ravindra Singh was asked to look after the office of the Managing Director. This order was subjected to challenge by means of Writ Petition No. 20075 of 2014 (Dr. Mahesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). It was contended before us that the Chairman of the U.P.Cooperative Federation Ltd. cannot direct the General Manager to look after the office of Managing Director specifically, when he does not satisfy the essential requirements of the post.
The High Court, restrained Sri Ravindra Singh from functioning as the Managing Director of U.P.Cooperative Federation Ltd. The interim order is still in operation. There is any Government order, which says that no officer after retirement shall be offered engagement, yet the same Sri Ravindra Singh has been directed to act as the Advisor to the U.P.Cooperative Federation Ltd., which is apex level Society even after his retirement with the condition that he shall be entitled to same salary as he was enjoying on the post of General Manager, meaning thereby that Sri Ravindra Singh is to be continued on same salary even after retirement.
On behalf of Sri Ravindra Singh, Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi, learned senior Advocate is present.
This Court enquired as to under which statutory provision/laws U.P.Cooperative Federation Ltd. has created the post Advisor and as to how Sri Ravindra Singh has been selected for the post without advertisement and without any notice being published for the public to respond to the said post, if any, no answer could be given. However, it is stated that Sri Ravindra Singh is not a holder of public office and a writ for quo-warranto is not maintainable. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (I).
In our opinion, the issue, as to whether a writ of quo-warranto should be issued or this Court must exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to curtail such misuse of power of authority, has to be decided in the present writ petition. The Court has to ensure that public money is not wasted in garb of payment of salary to persons like Sri Ravindra Singh, who have retired from service.
Counsel for the respondents prays for and are granted ten days time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter.
List on 9.10.2015.
Till then, Sri Ravindra Singh shall not be permitted to function as Advisor and shall not be paid salary, without leave of the Court.
Order Date :- 22.9.2015 Ashish Pd.