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


Rajesh Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 45005 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14548 (28 August 2006)


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).


Court No.3

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.45005 of 2006

Rajesh Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and others



(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.C. Misra)


For the Petitioners: Sri S. Shekhar

For the Respondents: Sri A.K. Mehrotra,

Amitava Lala, J.: Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before this Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the cause of the petitioners is similarly placed with the matter which has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 26th May, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 14206 of 2006, Suresh Chandra Rawat and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others.

We have gone through the aforesaid judgment and order of the Division Bench, a copy of which has been placed by the learned counsel. Since the cause involved in the present writ petition are fully covered by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court, we are not inclined to pass any different order to avoid the multiplicity. Although the order aforesaid has been followed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38706 of 2006 and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38707 of 2006 passed on 1st August 2006 and 2nd August 2006 respectively but the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised his objection in passing the similar order. According to him, out of the two writ petitions as referred above in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38706 of 2006 it was held by this Court that no precedent will be created but no such order is passed in the subsequent writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38707 of 2006.

In any way to resolve the issue, we are of the view that certain amount or explanation is needed in this respect. According to the respondents clause (i) of the original order dated 26th May 2006 speaks about the petitioner wherein clause (ii) speaks about the rest. According to us, their Lordships meant to say those employees who are not before the Court. Therefore, the order which is being passed in clause (ii) is in fact is a omnibus order by treating others who are not before the Court to apply. But once a person makes a writ petition before the Court he will obviously become a petitioner therefore, his case cannot be considered under clause (ii) of the order but by the specific order as in clause (i). Consideration of the cause under clause (ii) of the order dated 26th May 2006 is a general observation made for them who were/are not before the Court. But here the petitioners are before the Court with their specific cause. Once application is made by any of the petitioners similarly situated, he will obviously get the similar order as available under clause (i) hereunder. Thus, cannot yet be directed to go under clause (ii). However, we feel it is expedient to pass similar order to maintain the comity of Judges. Passing of the earlier two orders are passed with an intention to avoid multiplicity when the causes are similar. Sitting in the parallel Bench, we should avoid to pass different order. Hence, we dispose of the instant writ petition finally with the following directions:

(i) The respondent no. 4 is directed to take steps to relieve the petitioner enabling him to join in UPPCL expeditiously, but not later than 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said authority.

(ii) The cases of other similarly placed employees of UPPCL, who are working on deputation with respondent nos. 3 and 4, if they also apply for repatriation, the same may also be considered for relieving in phases, so as to maintain running of the generation units on the one hand and keeping the interest of the employees and not to compel them to work with a foreign employer against their wishes.

(iii) The UPRVUNL in its affidavit has already said that it is ready to pay the deputation allowance to the employees working on deputation with them and we direct the Nigam to work out the deputation allowance payable to such employees under the existing rules and pay expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months.

(iv) The State Government's order dated 13.2.2006, in view of the fact that it does not provide any condition of service binding upon the petitioner and other similarly placed employees of UPPCL working on deputation with UPRVUNL, the same would not come in way of the respondents in giving effect to the directions issued by this Court as above and the said Government Order shall remain inoperative for such employees.

No order is passed as to costs.

              ( Justice Amitava Lala )

I agree

( Justice V.C. Misra )

August 28, 2006



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.