Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHUSHAN CHNADRA NAUTIYAL versus U.P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhushan Chnadra Nautiyal v. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 43223 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15385 (12 September 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43223 of 2007

`````````

Bhushan Chandra Nautiyal Vs. The U.P. State Hand-loom Corporation Ltd. & others

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Arun Tandon J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner, who was employed as Depot Manager Grade-II in U.P. State Hand-loom Corporation Ltd., registered office, Kabir Bhawan, G.T. Road, Kanpur, was dismissed from service vide order dated 20th December, 2004. Under the order of dismissal itself, recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,42,014.25/- (Rupees fifteen lacs forty two thousand, fourteen and twenty five paise only) was directed being the loss caused to the State Government.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3588 of 2005 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2005, with a direction that the petitioner may avail his statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal under Rule 68(18) of the U.P. State Hand-loom Corporation Limited (Officers and Staffs) Service Rules.

In compliance of the order of this Court, the petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal on 9th February, 2005 along with an application seeking stay of the order of punishment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been decided till date nor any order has been passed on the interim stay application filed by the petitioner along with memo of appeal. Qua the appeal it is submitted that the Board of Directors have referred the matter for opinion to the State Government. However, in the meantime, recovery proceedings qua the amount, in terms of the order of punishment have been initiated. The proceedings of recovery so initiated have given rise to the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-consideration of the interim stay application filed by the petitioner along with memo of appeal for years together and steps being taken to recover the amount, as determined in the order of punishment, is legally not justified. He therefore, submits that so long as the stay application is not finally decided, respondents may be restrained from enforcing the recovery. The other issues qua mode and manner of recovery have also been raised in the present writ petition

Sri V.K. Birla, learned counsel for the U.P. State Hand-loom Corporation Ltd., however, submits that in case the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been decided till date or that final orders on the stay application have not been passed, appropriate decision on the stay application shall be taken at the earliest possible.

In view of the aforesaid, it is provided that the interim stay application filed by the petitioner along with memo of appeal shall be finally decided by the Board of Directors, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Managing Director (respondent no.1), who shall convene a meeting of the Board of Directors for the purpose within the time specified.

Till such decision on the stay application, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the amount, which is subject matter of appeal.

Petitioner undertakes to file a certified copy of this order before the Managing Director (respondent no.1) within one week from today. In case of default, petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefits of this order.

With the aforesaid observations/directions the present writ petition is disposed of finally.

12.09.2007

Sushil/-


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.