Ram Samuj Upadhyay {N-State} vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy. Nagar ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 538 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 23
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3252 of 1992
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Samuj Upadhyay {N-State}
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy. Nagar Vikas Lucknow And Ors
 
Petitioner Counsel :- A.K. Shukla,B.K. Singh,M.A. Faridi,R.C. Pathak
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Kapil Dev
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

The petition was dismissed on 24.9.2010. The order of dismissal records that the petitioner was a muster roll employee who was engaged in 1985 and was not allowed to work after 23.4.1990. The petition was filed in the year 1992 for a direction to reinstate him and to grant him consequent benefits. Therefore, after having remained pending for 18 years it has lost its efficacy and has become infructuous. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for recall of the above order dated 24.9.2010.

The Senior Judge vide order dated 2.4.2013 has directed the above application to be placed before the appropriate Bench ie. the bench dealing with the service matters.

Accordingly application has been listed before him for consideration.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the aforesaid date he could not attend the Court on account of disturbance in the working of the court due to date fixed for pronouncement of the judgment of Ram Janam Bhoomi case.

The cause for absence of the counsel may be justified but the fact remains as to whether cause of action for the petition survives or not.

It is admitted that the petitioner is not working since 23.4.1990. He has not challenged the order of termination of his service and has not even raised any labour or industrial dispute in connection with his retrenchment. Therefore, no direction for his reinstatement or any payment of consequential benefits could be granted to him in this writ petition. 

In such circumstances after the petitioner had remained out of job for more than 18 years, I find no justification for recalling of the order dated 24.9.2010 by which the petition was dismissed.

The petitioner is however set at liberty to take recourse to the legal remedies that may be available to him in law.

The application is rejected.

Order Date :- 8.4.2013

SKS