Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Arjun Kumar Sinha v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 25304 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 3812 (7 March 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).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

List has been revised. None has appeared for the petitioner. Heard Sri O.P. Singh, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Accounts Clerk vide order dated 19.2.1992. In compliance of orders dated 10.7.1997 and 6.8.1998, the petitioner started functioning as Accountant. His grievance is that though he is working on the post of Accountant but has not been promoted as such by giving him corresponding pay scale and designation. His repeated representations have not been considerd by the respondents and all his pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not promoting him to the post of Accountant whereas he is working as such, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

Normally questions of facts, which requires appraisal of documentary and oral evidence, are not decided in the writ jurisdiction as it is not feasible for the High Court to take oral and documentary evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether non-promotion of the petitioner suffers from any error of fact and law can only be decided after consideration of oral and documentary evidence to be led by the parties.

  It is the consistent view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union-(2005)6 SCC-725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another (2005)107 FLR-729 that in case alternate and efficacious remedy is available it should not be bye-passed and writ petition should not be normally entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has to approach this Court after availing alternate remedy.

   The petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, as held in Chandrama Singh V. Managing Director U.P.Co-operative Union Lucknow and others- (1991)1UPLBEC(2)-898.

   Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.   No order as to costs.

Dated 7.3.2007



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


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 |

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