Ramesh Sharma vs State Of U.P.And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5818 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2881 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Ramesh Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Baleshwar Prasad Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Baleshwar Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:-

"i. All this writ petition in light of Judgment and order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ-A No.50351 of 2013 (Jagmohan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dt.18-04-2022, because this writ petition is covered under the same Judgement.

ii. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to release all the claims of the petitioner as per Jagmohan Case.

iii. Issue a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dt.25-01-2023 in light of the judgement and order dt. 27-02--2017 passed in Writ-A No.50351 of 2013, (Jagmohan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others).

iv. To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

The petitioner has earlier preferred a writ petition bearing Writ-A No.33636 of 2013 in which counter was invited. Now the petitioner preferred the present writ petition praying for the same relief.

When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with a query as to how this writ petition is maintainable, he states that earlier writ petition has been dismissed in default by this Court and in such view of the fact, the present writ petition has been filed.

Be that as it may, the petitioner has already filed Writ-A No.33636 of 2013 praying for quashing of his retirement notice in which counter was invited on 13.06.2013. The said writ petition was lateron dismissed in default.

It is settled in law that second writ petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable as the principle of res-judicata is attracted.

In the instant case, petitioner has retired from service in the year 2013 and has approached this Court after about 10 years for the relief, extracted above. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition.

This Court is of the view that the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 21.2.2023

Sattyarth