Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1644 (ALL)

RAJMAN RAI v. STATE OF U P

2002-11-01

RAKESH TIWARI

body2002
RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. 2. The petitioner has made the following prayers in this writ petition: (a) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 2 to 5 to restore the service of the petitioner and allow him all benefits accruing to him from 26-3-1985 up-to-date; (b) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which is just and proper in the circumstances of the case; (c) to award costs to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was a driver in the Irrigation Department of U. P. Government. In the year 1984 respondent No. 5, Executive Engineer, Tube-well Construction Division, Gorakhpur got appointed Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Sri Adya Prakash, Sri Shiv Narain Singh, Sri Rajesh Kumar Nayak, Sri Awadh Bihari, Sri Umesh Chand Lal, Sri Om Prakash Lal and Sri Amresh Kumar. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Construction Division, Gorakhpur in the year 1985 got appointed Sri Bans Raj Singh, Sri Ram Dhiraj Singh, Sri Nagendra Nath Singh, Sri Om Prakash Singh, Sri Chitrasen Singh and Sri Surendra Singh in his division, which was against the Government Order and the Honble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that petitioner objected these appointments through Vice-President of the employees Union. It is alleged that respondent No. 5 employed criminal force to obtain resignation from the petitioner and also signed blank papers on 28th March, 1985, which was backdated as 26th March, 1985. It is further alleged that on 29th March, 1985 when petitioners wife was sleeping inside the house in the night, some criminals including Mahesh Narain Singh (respondent No. 5) reached the house of the petitioner when he was not present in his house, and threatened to shoot the petitioner. Petitioners wife lodged a report on 29-3-85 in Police Station Cantt. District Gorakhpur in this regard. A cross report was also lodged by respondent No. 5 and the petitioner was also granted bail in that case. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that an application was moved for restoration of service of the petitioner. This application was recommended by the then President Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee on 23-11-97. A cross report was also lodged by respondent No. 5 and the petitioner was also granted bail in that case. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that an application was moved for restoration of service of the petitioner. This application was recommended by the then President Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee on 23-11-97. The State Minister, Irrigation Department of U. P. ordered the Superintending Engineer, who is the appointing authority of the petitioner to allow him to work as a driver, but the petitioner was not reinstated. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents No. 2 to 5 to restore the service of the petitioner and allow him all benefits accruing to him from 26-3-1985 up-to-date. 5. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was working as a driver in the Irrigation Department of U. P. Government and had resigned from service on 26-3-85. The resignation letter was subsequently accepted by the Superintending Engineer on 28-3-1985. It is stated that orders were passed by the Deputy Secretary and the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh for taking the petitioner back in service. After his resignation was accepted. Since the petitioner has second thought for revoking his resignation. He filed writ petition No. 2201 of 1986, Rajman Rai v. State of U. P. and others, at Lucknow Bench, which was dismissed by an order dated 6-11-1987. 6. It is vehemently argued that after the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner on third thought and approached the Executive Engineer and thereafter filed the present writ petition and as such the same is barred by the principles of res-judicata as the earlier writ petition of the same cause of action has already been dismissed. 7. In regard to the appointment, it is submitted that no illegal appointment was ever made by respondent No. 5. The appointments were made by the Superintending Engineer, who is the appointing authority. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 Engineer-in-chief, Irrigation Department of U. P. Government has never passed the order for reinstatement of the petitioner. It is denied that the resignation was obtained forcibly and that after the dismissal of the writ petition in the year 1986, there was no question of re-appointment of the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 Engineer-in-chief, Irrigation Department of U. P. Government has never passed the order for reinstatement of the petitioner. It is denied that the resignation was obtained forcibly and that after the dismissal of the writ petition in the year 1986, there was no question of re-appointment of the petitioner. Standing Counsel has also placed reliance on the averments made in the counter-affidavit in which it has been stated that in compliance of the order of this Court, the file was examined by the department and it is clear from the D. O. Letter dated 23-10-89 that no order of reinstatement was passed in favour of the petitioner. The allegations made by the petitioner are contrary to the facts and record and are without any basis. It has been further submitted that the copy of the correct order dated 23-10-89 passed by the then Deputy Secretary Ram Niwas in writ petition No. 26540 of 1990 has been annexed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. 8. The petitioner had filed writ petition No. 2201 of 1986 for substantially the same reliefs as in the present writ petition. That writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 6-11-1987, hence the second writ petition on the same ground and for same reliefs is not maintainable. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .