KRISHNA GOPAL RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking number of reliefs but the main relief appears to be for quashing of order dated 19-12-1989 by which the services of the petitioner as Principal Judge of the Family Court at Lucknow have been terminated. The petitioner has further prayed for directing respondents nos. 1 and 2 to comply with the decision of the administrative committee of this court dated 7-12-1989 which was communicated to the respondents nos. 1 and 2 of the Joint Registrar on the same date. According to this letter of the Joint Registrar the decision of the administrative committee was that the petitioner is entitled to continue on the post upto the age of 62 years. In respect of this relief reference has also been made to the order dated 19-3-1990 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The other reliefs claimed are not necessary to be referred to as this stage.

(2.) IN brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed Judge of the Family Court at Lucknow vide order dated 25-9-1986. Subsequently he was appointed Principal Judge. The order of appointment has been filed as Annexure IX to the writ petition. According to the petitioner the term of Judge of a family court in view of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. 66 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is upto 62 years and he could not be terminated from service on 19-12-1989 by respondent no. 1. The order is illegal and void. Certain allegations have also been made in the writ petition against respondent no. 2 and it has been alleged that he ignored the decision of the Administrative Committee of this Court. The petitioner firstly filed writ petition no. 182 of 1990 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and sought relief of quashing the order dated 19-12-1989. IN that writ petition also the contention of the petitioner was that he is entitled to continue as Principal Judge of the Family Court at Lucknow until he attains the age of 62 years. Some other reliefs were also claimed in the writ petition. This writ petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 2-5-1990 in the application of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents in support of his contention that the present writ petition could not be legally filed and entertained at Allahabad has placed reliance on the cases Nasir Uddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 and Surendra Singh v. State of U. P., 1988 AWC SC 15. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner was working as Principal Judge of the Family Court at Lucknow at the time the impugned order dated 19-12-1989 was passed against him. The order was passed by respondents nos. 1 and 2 at Lucknow which is the seat of the Government, hence the cause of action only arose at Lucknow and the writ petition could only be filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The writ petition has been wrongly filed and entertained at Allahabad.