STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. VIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition No. 3316 (S/B) of 1997 (New No. 620 (S/B) of 2003), State of U.P. and others versus Sri Vikram Singh and another, has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 14.2.1997 passed by State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter re ferred to as the Tribunal') in Claim Pe tition No. 329/F/II/1988, Vikram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).

(2.) IT is pertinent to mention here that this writ petition was previously heard by the Division Bench of this Court and this Court allowed the writ petition, vide Judgment and, order dated 6.4.2004. The respondent no. 1 against the aforesaid Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court filed the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground that no notice was given either to him or his counsel with regard to the transfer of his case to the State of Uttaranchal from the State of U.P., hence, he did not have any opportunity to place his case before the High Court.

(3.) BRIEF facts are that respondent no. 1- Vikram Singh filed the claim pe tition before the Tribunal for quashing the order by which services of Vikram Singh were terminated. Respondent no. 1-Vikram Singh by way of the writ pe tition has also prayed for his reinstate ment. The grounds taken by Vikram Singh in the petition are that he was employed on the post of Van Daroga' on 1.10.1971 and is still working as such on that very post. The respond ent no. 1 also alleged that his salary for December 1984, January 1985 and February 1985 has not been paid to him in spite of representations made by him. It is further alleged that his pay from July 1986 to October 1986 has also not been paid to him. It is further alleged by respondent no. 1 in the claim petition filed by him before the Tribu nal that his salary for February 1987 was paid to him in December Iro7 and thereafter he is entitled to get the in terest @ 18.5% on delayed payment. The respondent no. 1 further alleged that T.A. bill amounting to Rs. 4500/-has also not been passed so far and one adverse entry for the year 1987-88 has been awarded to him and this adverse entry was received by him on 15.5.1988. Against this adverse entry, he made the representation but the same is pending as yet. It is further al leged that the service of respondent no. 1 has been terminated by order dated 24.9.1988 and thereafter he got his claim petition amended and challenged the termination order also on the ground that no reason whatsoever has been given as to why his services have been terminated. The petitioner, there fore, prayed for quashing his termina tion order.