Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Pal Singh vs Pramukh Abhiyanta (Yantrik) ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11433 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mahendra Pal Singh
Respondent :- Pramukh Abhiyanta (Yantrik) Sichai Avm Jal Sansadhan Vibhag And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravinath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to be issued to the respondents to grant continuity of service on the post of Beldar to the petitioner and to grant all service benefits as have been granted to petitioner's junior Rikhiram.
Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner was initially employed at Okhla and his services were terminated. A writ petition no. 616 of 1999 was filed before the Delhi High Court, which was allowed on 18th March, 2003, granting reinstatement alongwith continuity of service and full back-wages to the petitioner. This judgment was put to challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Apex Court and the SLP was dismissed on 27th February, 2004. It appears that a consequential order of reinstatement was passed in favour of the petitioner on 18th September, 2006, which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition.
The scale of pay as well as all benefits which were found due and payable to the petitioner were granted to him. This order dated 18th September, 2006, has not been challenged. There is no specific averment in the writ petition that any benefit due under the order dated 18th September, 2006 has not been extended to the petitioner. It appears that subsequent representations have been made by the petitioner for grant of higher benefits on the ground that juniors to the petitioner were granted such benefit.
Records further reveal that petitioner also instituted a contempt proceedings before the Delhi High Court and such petition was rejected on 8th August, 2007. Subsequent representations appears to have been made for grant of further benefits to the petitioner and certain note-sheet etc. have been annexed alongwith the writ petition. It is submitted that petitioner is entitled to higher scale of pay and parity ought to be extended to him as per benefit granted to petitioner's junior.
Petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel.
Perusal of the record would go to show that claim of the petitioner has been examined in compliance of the order passed by the Delhi High Court and a detailed order has been passed on 18th September, 2006. This order has not been challenged. There is no specific averment in the writ petition that benefits due under this order have not been extended to the petitioner. Once that be so, petitioner cannot be permitted now to raise a grievance which in effect questions the order dated 18th September, 2006 itself. In case petitioner was not satisfied with the order dated 18th September, 2006, he ought to have challenged the same. Filing of this writ petition after almost 13 years of passing of such order without there being any specific challenge to the order dated 18th September, 2006 is not liable to be entertained.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
The dismissal of this writ petition, however, will not preclude the petitioner from seeking benefit of the order dated 18th September, 2006, if the same has not already been provided to him.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Ranjeet Sahu
