High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Abhilash Singh v. Union Of India Thr Mini. Of Petrol New Delhi And Ors - WRIT - A No. 40024 of 2005  RD-AH 6380 (25 November 2005)
Court No. 7
Civil Misc. Writ No. 40024 of 2005
Abhilash Singh ... Petitioner
Union of India and others ... Respondents
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner was posted as Foreman (R.O.M) in the payscale of Rs.2546-5421 at Kathgodam. By order of the General Manager,(Sales), Northern Region, Indian Oil Corporation, New Delhi-respondent no.2, the petitioner has been posted in Bareilly division.
The petitioner has come up in this petition for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join as Foreman (R.O.M) at Bareilly Deport of the Indian Oil Corporation and to pay his salary, month by month, w.e.f. March 2005.
The allegation of the petitioner is that he was discharging his duties at Kathgodam and his promotion order was only partly complied with by relieving him from Kathgodam office but he is not being permitted to work at Bareilly.
In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, he has averred that he approached the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as to where he should render his services in the aforesaid circumstances but no actionhas been taken by them and he is suffering financial loss as his salary has not been released for the month of March, 2005 resulting break in his attendance being caused without any basis.
Sri Prakash Padia, counsel for the respondents states that instructions have been issued to the petitioner to join his duties at Bareilly. He has placed reliance upon the averments made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been averred :
" 11. That the contents of paragraph nos. 10 to 13 of the writ petition are wrong, incorrect and are denied. Moreover, full facts have been stated above and this Hon'ble Court may be please to peruse the same. It is wrong to say that the salary of the petitioner has not been released. It is wrong to say that there is any arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. There is absolutely no hardship caused to the petitioner. In fact, all the records pertaining to the petitioner have been maintained in the Bareilly Divisional Office and the petitioner was permitted/directed to work at Kathgodam area which in the direct control of Bareilly Divisional Office, but wholly illegally, in place of compliance of the order passed by the authorities, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by way of filing the present writ petition which has no force and is liable to be dismissed with cost."
It appears from a perusal of paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that no specific date has been mentioned when petitioner was instructed to join at Bareilly. Sri Padia states that he has been instructed that the petitioner may join at Bareilly within three weeks from today and all his outstanding wages shall be paid from Bareilly office within a period of three weeks after his joining there.
No other point has been argued.
In view of above submission of Sri Padia, counsel for the respondent, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner may join his duties at Bareilly within the aforesaid period of three weeks. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.