Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Singh vs Central Admin.Tribunal ... on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3146 of 2021
Petitioner :- Satyendra Singh
Respondent :- Central Admin.Tribunal Thru.Jt.Registrar Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- Yogesh Chandra Bhatt
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the TA No.01/2019 by conducting day to day hearing in the light of the direction issued by this Court in the orders dated 8.1.2019 and 25.2.2020, passed in Writ Petitions No.1085 (S/S) of 2002 and 5488 (S/S) of 2020 respectively.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that due to non deciding of TA No.01/2019, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1085 (S/S) of 2002, which was finally decided and the matter was referred to the Central Administrative Tribunal with the following direction :-
"All ancillary proceedings whatever may be pending consideration before this Court in the writ petition will also be transfered to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Since the writ petition is of the year 2002, it is expected that the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records."
4. Thereafter, due to non-passing of the order within the period prescribed by this Court, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5488 (S/S) of 2020, which was finally disposed of vide order dated 25.2.2020 with the following direction :-
"At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to move an application before the Tribunal, which may be directed to be decided in view of the order of this Court dated 08.01.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 1085(SS) of 2002, to which learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has no objection.
Keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in the Writ Petition No. 1085(SS) of 2002, the liberty is given to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for expediting the hearing of the case (T.A. No. 01 of 2019) before the Tribunal and if such an application is moved by the petitioner before the Tribunal, it is expected that the same shall be considered and decided by the Tribunal, if Bench is available, within 15 days from the date of receipt of application alongwith certified copy of this order. While deciding the application for expediting the hearing of the case, it is further expected that Tribunal shall take note of the judgment passed by this Court dated 08.01.2019 in Writ Petition No. 1085(SS) of 2019.
With the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally."
5. Now again the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction for compliance of the order passed by this Court.
6. I have perused the material on record and found that at earlier point of time on two occasions, direction was issued to the Central Administrative Tribunal to pass appropriate order within a reasonable period. In case the orders passed by this Court were not complied with, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file contempt petition. Successive writ petitions have been deprecated in view of the rider imposed under the High Court Rules. It is nothing but abuse of process of law. In case the petitioner is aggrieved, he may approach the appropriate Forum.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021
Gautam
