ANAND KUMAR PANDEY Vs. VINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -applicant, Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, was appointed as a Clerk/Tax Collector In the Town Area, Oran, District Banda, on 24.1.1987 on dally wages. The vacancy for the said post was notified on 22.2.1987 and after completing the formalities of selection, the Petitioner was duly appointed on the said post vide order dated 12.6.1987 and subsequently confirmed on 28.11.1988. Petitioner was suspended vide order dated 1.1.1990 on some charges. Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2271 of 1990 and this Court, vide its order dated 5.3.1990, stayed the operation of the suspension order dated 1.1.1990. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 5.3.1990, the opposite parties allowed the Petitioner to work. Petitioner's salary was not paid for the months of January and February, 1994. Petitioner felt suffocation and found the surrounding atmosphere totally hostile and Petitioner submitted his resignation on 6.4.1994. But subsequently, Petitioner made an application on 13.4.1994 to withdraw his resignation. Opposite parties accepted the said resignation vide order dated 23.11.1994. Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred writ petition No. 38735 of 1994 before this Court challenging the order dated 23.11.1994 on the ground that as the Petitioner had already filed an application to withdraw his resignation, the order dated 23.11.1994 was Illegal and prayed for quashing the same. This Court, vide its order dated 2.12.1994, stayed the operation of the order dated 23.11.1994. The Interim order runs as under:

(2.) IN paragraph No. 12 of this counter -affidavit, opposite party No. 2 has stated that "as soon as the order dated 2.12.1994 was received by the deponent, it was immediately, the same day, forwarded to the Executive Officer, vide Challan No. 4309 dated 10.1.1995 for compliance of the order as he was the competent authority to appoint the Petitioner...... The responsibility to comply with the orders of the Hon'ble court rests with the Executive Officer.

(3.) SRI R.S. Maurya, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has fairly conceded that the proceedings may be dropped against the opposite party No. 2 and thus, the same is being considered only against opposite party No. 1, the Executive Officer.