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


Kripa Shanker Dubey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 33371 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 254 (4 August 2003)


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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33371 of 2003

Kripa Shanker Dubey ......... Petitioner


State of U.P. & Ors ......... Respondents

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

Hon. D.P. Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow dated 21st April, 2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some other similarly situated persons have been absorbed  by the respondents giving the petitioner a hostile treatment and as discrimination is not permissible under the law, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim of the petitioner rather than rejecting it.

The learned Tribunal has rejected the case holding that the petitioner has been working as a seasonal workman and he had been employed only for a particular season and not for the whole year, therefore, the question of his regularisation does not arise. There is nothing in the judgment of the learned Tribunal to show as to whether the issue agitated before this Court was raised before the learned Tribunal. Thus, it is not for us to hold an enquiry as what was the issues agitated by the petitioner before the Tribunal and if agitated, how the learned Tribunal failed to deal with (Vide State of Maharastra Vs. Ram Das Shrinivas Nayak & Anr.,  AIR 1982 SC 1249). Therefore, the only remedy available for the petitioner in such a situation was to point out before the learned Tribunal that he has agitated some issues which have not been dealt with by the Tribunal by moving a review application and it is not permissible to entertain the writ petition on the issues which have not been agitated before the learned Tribunal. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, if petitioner is aggrieved, he may moved a review application before the learned Tribunal.




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.