LAIK AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as stated by learned counsel for petitioner are that the petitioner was working as driver in the office of Commissioner Faizabad Division. By means of order dated 1.6.1993 he was placed under suspension .Thereafter his services were terminated vide order dated 6/7.4.1994 passed by Commissioner Faizabad Division Faizabad. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal before appellate authority, who vide order dated 11.6.1997 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of termination by which petitioner's services were terminated . Further, the appellate authority also held that the petitioner is entitled for other service benefits from the date his services were terminated till the reinstatement of his services, but no back wages shall be given to him.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred a representation dated 20.11.2002 before opposite party no.2, the same was rejected by order dated 25.5.2004 holding therein that same has been rejected having no merit, hence the present writ petition has been filed thereby challenging the order dated 25.5.2004 (Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.3 as well as the order dated 11.6.1997( Annexure no.2) passed by opposite party no.3 .