SHIV PUJAN RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST revised. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri G.K. Singh are present for respondents. I have perused the record. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs: (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus against the opposite parties to restrain the opposite parties for not causing any obstruction in the duty of the petitioner and salary of the petitioner since 9.3.1978; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of direction to quash the illegal termination or any illegal order if come in light according to this case which was not served to the petitioner for giving the duty and salary of the petitioner since 9.3.1978 till regularly; (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction against the opposite parties in nature of controlling for giving the not paid salary of the petitioner since 9.3.1978 till now with 15% interest as considered by Supreme Court like this type of cases and circumstances in justice ; From paras 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it is evident that a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 10.7.1978 but the petitioner did not respond. Thereafter by way of abundant precaution the management also got published a notice against the petitioner for information and compliance in the newspaper i.e., Hindi Newspaper, 'Janvarta' on 11.8.1978. The management thereafter passed a resolution dated 17.9.1978 terminating his services. None of the said orders have been challenged in the writ petition. Moreover, concealing the aforesaid facts the present writ petition has been filed. The aforesaid averments of the counter affidavit have not been rebutted by the petitioner. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly, dismissed.