Ashok Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10956 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18229 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Dubey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Deptt.Of Minor Irrigation Andors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayankar Singh,Shailendra Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.

This petition has been filed for a direction to the opposite parties to provide the arrears of salary for the period from the date of termination to the date of judgment of this Court w.e.f. 30.07.1988 to 05.12.2003.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Boring Technician in Minor Irrigation Department U.P. His services were terminated by means of the order dated 26/30.07.1988. The petitioner had challenged the same in Writ Petition No.3964 (S/S) of 1990. The writ petition was allowed in part by means of the judgment and order dated 05.12.2003 and the termination order was quashed and a direction was issued that the petitioner shall be reinstated on the existing available vacancy. It was specifically provided that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get any arrears of salary, but in case the petitioner is continuing, he shall be allowed to receive his salary in accordance with law. It appears that subsequent thereto the petitioner was re-engaged by means of the order dated 07.03.2005. The petitioner had challenged the same in Writ Petition No.7949 (S/S) of 2007. The said writ petition was allowed and the order dated 07.03.2005 was quashed to the extent it lays down the condition that the petitioner is being re-appointed on the post of Assistant Boring Technician and the respondents were directed to extend the continuity of service with all consequential benefits to the petitioner in terms of the judgment and order dated 05.12.2003 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3964 (S/S) of 1990. Therefore it can not be said that the petitioner is entitled for the arrears of salary for the period w.e.f. 30.07.1988 to 05.12.2003 because it was specifically denied by means of the judgment and order dated 05.12.2003 passed in writ petition no.3964 (S/)S of 1990. Therefore the writ petition could not have been filed so it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed.

Perusal of the order sheet indicates that from the very beginning the learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued and only got the case adjourned on the very first date.

In view of above, the petitioner is permitted to not press the writ petition on payment of cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today before the Senior Registrar of this Court, failing which the Senior Registrar shall take appropriate action to recover the same in accordance with law.

.............................................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

Order Date :- 23.8.2022

Haseen U.