Allahabad High Court
Shyam Behari Lal vs U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Through Its ... on 19 September, 2023
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60029
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2673 of 2003
Petitioner :- Shyam Behari Lal
Respondent :- U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Through Its Chairman -Cum-Managing
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ruhi Siddiqui,Narendra Gupta,R.K. Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- N.K.Pandey,Sandeep Dixit,Vasudev Mishra
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. The case has been listed under the heading "These cases shall not be adjourned".
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. None has put in appearance for the respondent to assist the Court.
4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has made the following reliefs:
"i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order of termination dated 2.5.2003 which is contained as Annexure Number-1 to the writ petition.
ii. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service on the post of Petrolman and to grant all consequential benefit such as seniority and other benefit arising thereof.
iii. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
6. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court was placed to pass order on 16.5.2003 which is being quoted below:
"Admit.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties has been accepted by Sri N.K. Pandey, who prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Mate to the post of Petrolman on 5.8.1996 and thereafter a decision was taken on 19.12.2002 that the petitioner is not entitled for continuous of service from 1978 to 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no complaint against the work and conduct of the petitioner and still work is available in the Corporation and juniors have been retained in service.
Shri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same has been passed in compliance of the judgment and order dated 30.5.1997 passed by this Hon'ble Court.
I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The petitioner has alleged that he was promoted from the post of Mate to Petrolman on 5.8.1996. A perusal of the order dated 19.12.2002, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition, also reveals that the opposite parties have taken a decision not to give the benefit to the petitioner for the period 1978 to 1990.
List this petition in the first week of August, 2003.
Till further orders of this Court, the operation and enforcement of the impugned order dated 2.5.2003, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed."
7. In pursuance to the interim order granted by the Court, the petitioner continued in service till the date of superannuation and retired on 30.6.2015. The retiral dues of the petitioner has been paid and pension has been fixed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Mate to Petrolman on 5.8.1996 and thereafter, a decision was taken on 14.12.2002 that the petitioner is entitled for continuance of service from 1978 to 1990. He further submits that there is no complain against the work and conduct of the petitioner and his work is available in the Corporation and juniors have been retained in service.
9. In view of the above, in terms of the interim order, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.5.2003 is hereby quashed.
10. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner is entitled to get his pension.
Order Date :- 19.9.2023
GK Sinha
