Sri Pooran Chand Gupta vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 6295 ALL

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 6295 ALL
Judgement Date : 2 December, 2011

Allahabad High Court

Sri Pooran Chand Gupta vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & ... on 2 December, 2011

Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Manoj Misra




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 69715 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Sri Pooran Chand Gupta
 
Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ranjit Saxena,Deepak Saxena
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,P.K. Tripathi,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

We have heard Shri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Tripathi appears for the UP Power Corporation Limited.

Shri P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that against the same order, by which the recovery was directed from the pension of the petitioner, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 48539 of 2011, which was disposed of on 30.8.2011 (Page 65) with a direction to the UP Power Corporation Limited to decide his representation. This writ petition has been filed on same facts, grounds and for same reliefs.

Shri Ranjit Saxana appearing for the petitioner states that inspite of directions of the Court to decide petitioner's representation within one month, for which the petitioner made a representation on 6.9.2011, the matter has not been decided. Since the recovery is being made every month from the petitioner's retiral dues, he has filed this second writ petition.

Where the order passed by the Court is not complied with, the petitioner can avail remedies of filing a contempt petition. It is not appropriate for the Court to adjudicate the issue, for which this Court has relegated the petitioner for a decision on his representation, and to pass any order, until the representation is decided. Since the petitioner is a retired person, we find it appropriate to keep the writ petition pending, awaiting the representation to be decided.

The writ petition shall be listed for orders on 6.2.2012. We expect that the petitioner's representation directed to be considered by the Court will be decided by that time.

Order Date :- 2.12.2011

RKP