Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BASANT LAL DHURIYA versus UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Basant Lal Dhuriya v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. & Others - WRIT - A No. 11047 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3375 (28 February 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

            In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-                              

i) "Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Noting of Termination order made by Respondent no. 5 in the service book of the petitioner having no date in pursuance of letter no. 253 dated 27.2.2003 (Annexure No.18);

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service on the post of J.M.T in U.P. Power Corporation since 1.11.2000 till May 2004 (age of superannuation of the petitioner) and respondents be further commanded to release the salary of the petitioner since 1.11.2000 till May, 2004 with increment etc., and other consequential benefits;

iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give admissible increment which was due to the petitioner for the period of 1998 till May 2004;

iv) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

v) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner."

            Earlier also a writ petition was filed by the petitioner claiming arrears of salary.  The reliefs claimed in this writ petition appear to beare substantially the same i.e. for payment of arrears including increment except that the petitioner has also challenged the order of termination dated 27.2.2003.

           The earlier writ petition was dismissed in default and restoration application was also rejected as the copy of the same was not served upon counsel for the other side.

           Instead of moving recall/restoration application in proper manner under the High Court Rules after serving the other side, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition, which appears to be substantially second writ petition for the same reliefs.

         Furthermore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by order of termination, he also has an alternate remedy under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and may also claim pecuniary benefits.

        For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy and also on the ground that the present writ petition is second writ petition for the same reliefs. No order as to costs.

Dated 28.2.2007

Kkb


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.