Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajendra Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 4253 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1731 (23 January 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari ,J

           Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

          The standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. He prays for and is granted one month's time and no more to file counter affidavit.

 Issue notice to respondent nos. 4 to 7 returnable at an early date. The aforesaid respondent nos.4 to 7 may file counter affidavit within the aforesaid period.

            Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within 3 weeks thereafter.

  List immediately thereafter.

            It is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the orders of the District Magistrate, Chairman and S.D.O. the Executive Officer is not obeying the order and is bent upon to terminate the services of the petitioner maliciously.

           The operation of the impugned suspension order dated 30.7.2005 shall remain stayed till further orders unless vacated or modified earlier.

Dated 23.1.2006

CPP/-4253-2006

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner was appointed as Ankik in the office of Managing Director, Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited, Dyaudhi alias Hadipur, District J.P. Nagar. On 23.12.2000 on account of accident the petitioner sustained injury. He was on medical leave from 23.12.2002 to 9.4.2003. He  submitted his medical certificate before respondent no.3 on 9.4.2003 and  joined his duty on 10.4.2003. He was shown absent in office record from 10.4.2003 to 31.5.2003 and his salary from September, 2003 to October, 2005 has not been paid to him. In this regard he has made a representation dated 7.11.2005 before respondent no.2 which has remained unactioned till date, hence this writ petition.

Whether the petitioner was on medical leave from 23.12.2002 to 9.4.2003 or not and whether he was absent from duty or not and whether he was wrongly shown absent from duty are disputed questions of facts which require findings of facts to be determined on the basis of oral and documentary evidence by the Labour   Court. Apart from the above facts that the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy against the aforesaid grievance before the Labour Court, the only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that a direction may be issued to respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 7.11.2005 within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.

The standing counsel has no objection to this prayer.

In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid r


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.