High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mohd. Shamim Khan v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal & Others - WRIT - A No. 3499 of 1983  RD-AH 3588 (26 September 2005)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 3499 OF 1983
Mohd. Shamim Khan
U.P. Public Service Tribunal No.1, Lucknow and others.
HON. DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
This case has a chequered history. The petitioner while working as a teacher was removed from service-vide order dated 12.5.1966. He had filed a suit which was decreed by the civil court - vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1974 wherein the learned trial Court held that the dismissal was bad and the petitioner would be deemed to be in continuous service and he should be reinstated with all consequential benefits including the back wages. Against that the State authorities approached the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and the matter was decided -vide judgment and order dated 2.9.1977 affirming the finding recorded by the civil court. As the petitioner was not paid all the back wages etc., he again approached the Tribunal contending that several orders have been passed by the educational authorities treating the petitoner as a fresh appointee without giving the consequential benefits. The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 12.11.1982 clarified that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service and he could not be treated to be a fresh appointee. However, as there was claims and counter claims on behalf of the parties on the issue as to whether the petitioner was willing to join or made any attempt to join the services in pursuance of the order of Tribunal or he was prevented by the respondents- authorities to join the services and in view thereof whether he was entitled for the back wages from 23.1.1978 till 12.11.1982, would depend upon the factual issue to be decided by the educational authorities. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
The only question involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the back wages for the period for which he had not worked. The question was left open by the Tribunal directing the State authorities to decide it as to whether the petitoner was at fault or he was prevented by the State authorities to work and then make the payment of arrears accordingly. No other issue is involved. The issue left open by the tribunal is a pure question of fact, which cannot be determined in the writ jurisdiction. A period of 22 years has elapsed. The learned counsel for the petitoner is not in a position to explain as to whether any application has been made by the petitioner before the authorities who had been directed by the Tribunal to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the back wages of the period from 1.1.1978 till 12.11.1982. Being the disputed question of fact we refrain from entering into the merits of the case.
The petition is dismissed accordingly.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.