Uttarakhand High Court
Ramesh Chand Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Others on 1 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3284 of 2017
Ramesh Chand Gupta ......... Petitioner
Vs.
State of U.P. and others .......Respondents
Present: Mr. Mohd. Matloob , Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Standing Counsel for the State of UP./respondent nos. 1 to
3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks following reliefs in the instant writ petition:-
"1) To issue a writ of mandamus, order, direction or writ in the nature of
Mandamus, commanding opp. Parties to decide the
representation/replies dated 03.01.2000 followed by reminder dated
13.06.2000 contained in Annexure no.1 submitted by the petitioner
against the show cause notice issued by opp. Party No. 3, Anita
Bhatnagar Jain (without showing her designation and post as evident
from the show cause notice itself Annex. -2) dated 17.11.1999 and
also direct the Opp. Party to ensure the payment of petitioner salary
along with other allowances and other benefits dues with effect from
August 1985 till date along with 18% interest accrued thereon.
(1A) To issue a writ of mandamus, order, direction or writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opp. parties not to give effect to the
impugned removal order, dated 21st August, 2001, alleged to have
been passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 contained in Annex. No. 33,
inter alia, removing the petitioner from his service with retrospective
effect, i.e. with effect from 2.8.1985 and quash the impugned order
dated 21st August, 2001 (Annex. No.33) by issuing a writ of
certiorari after summoning its original from the Opp. Party No. 1
and also direct to the Opp. Party No.1 to pay the entire salary and
other allowances admissible to the petitioner with effect from 2nd
August, 1985 to this date or till he attains the age of superannuation
along with 18% per annum interest incurred thereon.
2) To issue any other order or direction to the Opposite Parties in
favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper.
3) To award cost of the writ petition."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the State of UP and perused the record.
3. The reliefs as reproduced above make it clear that initially, the
writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the respondents to consider
the representation filed by the petitioner. But, during the pendency of the writ
petition, impugned order dated 21.08.2001 for removal of petitioner from the
services has been passed.
4. At the time of hearing, today learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ
petition with a liberty to file statutory appeal against the impugned order
dated 21.08.2001, but he seeks direction of the Court that the respondents may
be directed to decide the appeal within a time frame, while relaxing the
limitation. He also submits that the petitioner would prefer an appeal within a
period of one month from today.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that if the
appeal is filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 21.08.2001,
it may be decided within three months.
6. Now, in the instant writ petition, the relief against the impugned
order dated 21.08.2001 has also been claimed, by which the petitioner has
been removed from his services. The petitioner seeks permission to withdraw
the writ petition with liberty to file a statutory appeal. It may be done with
certain directions to the respondents.
7. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned
order dated 21.08.2001 within a period of one month from today. If such an
appeal is filed, the respondents shall while relaxing the limitation, consider
and decide the representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order within
three months thereafter.
8. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.03.2021
Jitendra
