M GANESAN Vs. A K BELWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments in the writ petition Were heard on 16.5.2002 along with connected writ petitions and the judgment was reserved. One of the petitioners, namely, Mr.Swami Nath filed this application (CM.8106/2002) which came up for hearing on 7.8.2002. The applicant appeared in person and submitted that the matter may be disposed of at an early date. Since this was the only prayer made at the time of hearing this application, the application was disposed of stating that the judgment would be pronounced on 14.8.2002. On 14.8.2002 the judgment in this writ petition and connected writ petitions was pronounced.

(2.) At this stage Mr.Keshwani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in CM.8106/2002 (who was not appearing in the main matter) submitted that his application be heard and decided. He was informed that the application had already been disposed of on 7.8.2002. The learned counsel, however, submitted that in the application the prayer was not for pronouncing of the judgment in the writ petition but in fact as the applicant was not given proper duties, prayer in the application was for giving a direction to the respondent to pass an order of posting of the applicant. Although this prayer was not pressed on 7.8.2002, as pointed out above, and since the applicant had appeared in person and submitted that he could not point out the averments and prayers made in the application, we heard Mr.Keshwani.

(3.) In the application, the applicant has alleged that he has been kept in waiting for proper posting as per his seniority in a mala fide and biased manner. It was submitted by Mr.Keshwani that although the applicant was receiving the salary, the employee had a right to discharge his duties also and, therefore, necessary orders to this effect may be passed.