High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajat Chandra Srivastava v. State Of U.P. & ors. - WRIT - A No. 16147 of 1989  RD-AH 267 (24 May 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16147 of 1989
Rajat Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.
Heard Shri Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of the State of U.P.
This writ petition was filed seeking prayer to treat the petitioner having been appointed on substantive capacity as a lecturer in Sanskrit in Dr. K.P. Jaiswal Inter College, Allahabad with effect from 12.6.1985 and also to treat the petitioner as confirmed lecturer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has been selected on the post of the Principal through U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and is being paid his salary. In view of this, the petitioner has moved an amendment application supported by an affidavit-dated 30.11.1994 and also a Supplementary Affidavit dated 9.2.2004 has been filed seeking amended relief :
"directing the respondents to treat the petitioner to be in continuous service from the date of appointment in Dr. K.P. Jaiswal Inter College, Mutthiganj, Allahabad-opposite party no.4 on the post of lecturer in the subject of Sanskrit dated 11.1.1984, so that the petitioner may not loose his pensionary benefit as the petitioner was hopeful of the success of his writ petition till his appointment on the post of Principal in Vatsaraj Swatantra Bharat Inter College, Gautambudh Nagar dated 23.2.1999 having joined in the said college on the post of Principal after a due selection by the Commission."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press his main reliefs sought for in the writ petition, since in view of the above said circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous, but the petitioner is entitled for adding of the period of his service as lecturer with his service period on the post of Principal for the purpose of retiral benefits.
The petitioner, since, is still in service and has yet not reached the age of superannuation, the granting of the aforesaid amended relief does not arise being pre-mature. More so, there is no reason why the petitioner shall not be granted his full retiral benefits in accordance with law. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed having become infructuous. No order as to costs.
May 24, 2004
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.