Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OM PRAKASH AWASTHI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Om Prakash Awasthi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 59242 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18341 (30 October 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

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59242 of 2006

Om Prakash Awasthi

Versus

State of U.P and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla.J.

Petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on 30.09.1995. Petitioner was transferred from Mahoba to Banda vide order dated 12.01.1996. Petitioner's salary was withheld and he was not permitted to perform and discharge duties as such he preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23883 of 1996 (Om Prakash Awasthi Vs. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Jhansi and others). Said writ petition was allowed and the order dated 17.05.1996 by means of which information has been sent to petitioner that he has not been appointed has been quashed. Petitioner has contended that thereafter he submitted his joining  and he was permitted to work with effect from 19.11.1998. petitioner has contended that he demanded the arrears of salary from April 1996 to 11.11.1998 and thereafter reference was made on 08.03.2006 and order has been passed that petitioner has not functioned from April 1996 and 11.11.1998 as such he is not entitled to salary for the aforesaid period. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that once he was not at fault and the order dated 17.05.1996 had been quashed then necessary consequence of the same is that entire benefit be extended to him as such view which has been taken is incorrect view and writ petition is liable to be allowed.

Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that this Court while allowing the writ petition at no point of time awarded back wages as such claim of the petitioner is misconceived.

After respective arguments have been advanced order passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  23883 of 1996 (Om Prakash Awasthi Vs. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Jhansi and others) has been perused. It is true that order dated 17.05.1996 has been quashed but no consequential benefit has been awarded in the same. Once order dated 24.10.1998 is silent on this score qua the claim of back wages then in fact, effect of of the same by necessary implication is that said relief was not at all accorded by this Court.

As during the said period petitioner has not functioned by this Court no positive direction has been issued in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  23883 of 1996 (Om Prakash Awasthi Vs. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Jhansi and others) for payment of back wages as such opinion which has been formed cannot be said to be incorrect opinion.

Consequently writ petition lacks substance and as such same is dismissed.

30.10.2006

Dhruv    


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.