Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIKRAM SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vikram Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 33180 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 3900 (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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

List has been revised but no one has turned up to prosecute the case. Heard Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Case of the petitioner is that as per Government order dated 18,10.1989, employees opting for retirement at the age of 58 years are entitled for selection/promotion grade and increments but such benefits have not been accorded to the petitioner though he had opted for retirement at the age of 58 years

         Aggrieved by alleged mala fide of the respondents in not extending the aforesaid benefits, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction by means of this writ petition.          

The question as to whether the said non extending the benefit of selection/promotion grade, increment etc, to the petitioner who opted for retirement at the age of 58 years  suffers from any error of fact and law in the circumstances it has been passed can only be decided after consideration of  oral and documentary evidence which is adduced by the parties.  The disputed questions of facts, which requires appraisal of documentary and oral evidence, are not to be decided in the writ jurisdiction as it is not feasible for this Court to take oral and documentary evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution.

  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/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.