Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MIRZA RAFAT BEG versus M.D., U.P.S.R.T.C., LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mirza Rafat Beg v. M.D., U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow And Others - WRIT - A No. 11043 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4204 (22 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.7

Civil Misc. Writ No. 11043 of 2006

Mirza Rafat Beg                                                      Petitioner

                                             Vs.

MD UPSRTC and others                                           Respondents.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

           Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

             The petitioner retired from service on 31.7.1994. Respondent no.2, Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh. He  has now been issued  show cause notice dated 24.12.2004 after 10 years, as to why the provisions of Regulation 53(3) be not applied in the matter of disentitling him from any service benefit as he had not resumed duties from 1979. The petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause on 24.3.2005 and has also made a representation  dated 13.6.2005 before respondent no.2 for payment of his retrial dues.

         If the petitioner had absented or had not reported for duty since 1979 action ought to have been taken against him before he retires from service i.e. 31.7.1994.  

          Admittedly, the retrial dues of the petitioner have not been paid for the last 10 years. Issuance of the show cause notice after 10 years of retirement of an employee for disentitling him from service benefits appears to be malicious in the aforesaid background and in the circumstances. This is also apparent from the fact that the authorities are not deciding the representation of the petitioner. No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee much after less than 10 years in order to usurp his retrial dues.

           Since the petitioner has come up in this writ petition against a show cause notice as such the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. However, it is directed that the representation of the petitioner dated 13.6.2005 shall be decided by respondent no.2 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of 1 month from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.

          The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before respondent no.2 within a week from today.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Dated 22.2.2006

CPP/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.