SHEO MILAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. It appears that on earlier occasion, on December 1, 1995, this case had to be adjourned on the ground that Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate-General was out of station.

(2.) THIS case was heard, at a considerable length, on previous occasion as well. The case was marked as part heard, after hearing Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the office of the Advocate General (present Additional Advocate General) and Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the annexures are in Hindi, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to translate them in English. Sri Ravi Kant has produced the English translation of the Hindi annexures.

(3.) SRI Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of termination of the petitioner was unwarranted as even after passing of the order of termination, petitioner was allowed to continue till 28th February, 1992. Even thereafter, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondents are taking work from the petitioner. The petitioner is still working but is not being paid salary. Thus, according to SRI Ravi Kant, the order of termination has not been passed on proper application of mind by the respondent authorities.