Allahabad High Court
Ratan Singh vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8346 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ratan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Agriculture & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Singh,Maheep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajeev Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ACSC for respondent No.1 and Sri Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that while holding the post of Sales Officer he retired from service from respondent - department on 31.07.2018.
3. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Sales Trainee on 01.01.1984 and was appointed as Sales Assistant on 04.11.1985. Subsequently, he was granted appointment on the post of General Manager (Fertilizer) on 10.10.1986.
4. The petitioner was retrenched vide order dated 15.06.1993 on account of financial condition of the corporation. Writ Petition No.5497 (S/S) of 1993 was filed by the petitioner, wherein an interim order was granted on 21.07.1993 whereby retrenchment of the petitioner was stayed. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined his duties on the post of Sales Assistant (now Sales Officer) in the corporation.
5. He claims that one Anil Kumar, who was account clerk filed writ petition No.7493 (S/S) of 1988 claiming regular salary in the pay scale of Rs.410-640. The writ petition was decided vide judgment and order dated 03.11.1992 allowing the payment of regular pay scale of Rs.410-640 and in compliance of the order, he was provided the claimed pay scale in the writ petition.
6. The petitioner filed writ petition No.5813 (S/S) of 1996 praying for regularization in service on the post of Sales Assistant and for payment of arrears of salary. To decide the claim of the petitioner in pending representation, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.08.2017 with a direction that the petitioner shall be permitted to move a fresh representation to the respondents to claim benefit of assured carrier progression scheme within a period of three weeks from the date of order and the same was directed to be decided within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
7. The petitioner filed representation in pursuance thereof on 20.06.2018, 22.10.2018, 29.11.2018, 14.01.2020 and 23.05.2020 and approached to higher authorities.
8. Now, the present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction to decide the representation filed on 14.01.2020 and 23.05.2020 for consideration of claim of the petitioner for payment of assured carrier progression scheme.
9. On perusal of the record, it is reflected that vide order dated 11.08.2017, following direction was issued:-
"Looking into the aforesaid facts, petitioners are permitted to move afresh representation detailing all their grievances to respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. In case, any such representation is made by the petitioners within the aforesaid period to the respondent No.2, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law, by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation is produced before him.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of finally."
10. On perusal of the order dated 11.08.2017, it is evident that the petitioners were permitted to move a fresh representation detailing all their grievances to respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks along with certified copy of the order. In case, such a representation is made by the petitioners within aforesaid period before respondent No.2, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by speaking and reasoned order within a period of three weeks from the date of certified copy of the order is produced.
11. In view of the above, in case the order passed by this court on 11.08.2017 was complied with and no order was passed by the respondent on the representation filed by the petitioner, the remedy available to the petitioner was to file a contempt petition for non compliance of the direction issued by this court. The second petition for the same relief is barred under the Rules of the Court and filing of successive writ petitions on the same cause of action is misuse of the process of Court.
12. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
Adarsh K Singh
