Ram Singh Vs. Managind Director, U.P. Co-op. Federation, Lucknow and Others

Ram Singh vs Managind Director, U.P. Co-op. Federation, Lucknow and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided May 18, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/481383

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/481383
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D.K. Seth, J.
Decided On: May 18, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 20520 of 1999
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - salary pending inquiry - suspension Order against person - finally services terminated - interim stay Order granted - suit filed for recovery of salary alongwith annual increment - writ petition already pending - held, no fresh cause of action, issue can be joined in earlier petition itself. - - In fact ...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Singh

Advocate M.A. Zaidi, Adv.

Respondent

Managind Director, U.P. Co-op. Federation, Lucknow and Others

Advocate Vikas Chandra Tripathi, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 1999(3)AWC2154

Excerpt

service - salary pending inquiry - suspension order against person - finally services terminated - interim stay order granted - suit filed for recovery of salary alongwith annual increment - writ petition already pending - held, no fresh cause of action, issue can be joined in earlier petition itself. - - in fact the very relief which is being sought in this petition can very well be prayed within the scope and ambit of the earlier writ petition.d.k. seth, j.1. the petitioner alleges that he was suspended and subjected to a disciplinary proceeding which ultimately resulted into termination of his service. the petitioner has challenged the said order in writ petition no. nil of 1994wherein an interim order was granted staying the operation of the order dated 24.7.1993. the said writ petition is still pending. by means of this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that he may be paid salary due from 24.1.1994 to 15.7.1996 and suspension allowance for the period between 14.7.1991 and 24.7.1993 and also to pay annual increment and decide his representation.the question of subsistence allowance if not already paid can be decided in the pending writ petition. the question of payment of full salary is dependent on the outcome of the decision in the pending writ petition. unless the order of termination is set aside, there is no question of payment of full salary for the period after 24.7.1993, viz., the date of termination. the question of annual increment is also dependent on the result of the said writ petition. this writ petition is, therefore, wholly misconceived.in fact the very relief which is being sought in this petition can very well be prayed within the scope and ambit of the earlier writ petition. there is no fresh cause of action for the petitioner in the present writ petition. inasmuch as on the basis of the interim order passed in the said writ petition, the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is founded. for the relief based on such interim order, the second writ petition cannot be maintained.therefore, after hearing learned counsel for petitioner shri m. a. zaidi and learned counsel for the respondents shri vikas chandra tripathi. this writ petition is dismissed on the ground mentioned above.2. however, it will be open to the petitioner to agitate all these questions in the pending writ petition if he is so advised.3. there will be however no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

D.K. Seth, J.

1. The petitioner alleges that he was suspended and subjected to a disciplinary proceeding which ultimately resulted into termination of his service. The petitioner has challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1994wherein an interim order was granted staying the operation of the order dated 24.7.1993. The said writ petition is still pending. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that he may be paid salary due from 24.1.1994 to 15.7.1996 and suspension allowance for the period between 14.7.1991 and 24.7.1993 and also to pay annual Increment and decide his representation.

The question of subsistence allowance if not already paid can be decided in the pending writ petition. The question of payment of full salary is dependent on the outcome of the decision in the pending writ petition. Unless the order of termination is set aside, there is no question of payment of full salary for the period after 24.7.1993, viz., the date of termination. The question of annual increment is also dependent on the result of the said writ petition. This writ petition is, therefore, wholly misconceived.

In fact the very relief which is being sought in this petition can very well be prayed within the scope and ambit of the earlier writ petition. There is no fresh cause of action for the petitioner in the present writ petition. Inasmuch as on the basis of the interim order passed in the said writ petition, the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is founded. For the relief based on such interim order, the second writ petition cannot be maintained.

Therefore, after hearing learned counsel for petitioner Shri M. A. Zaidi and learned counsel for the respondents Shri Vikas Chandra Tripathi. this writ petition is dismissed on the ground mentioned above.

2. However, it will be open to the petitioner to agitate all these questions in the pending writ petition if he is so advised.

3. There will be however no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Ram Singh vs Managind Director, U.P. Co-op. Federation, Luckn... Same Subject Service Same Judge D.K. Seth, J.

Service