RAM DEV DIXIT Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Ram Dev Dixit (petitioner) challenging the judgment and order dated 4th February. 1986 dismissing Claim Petition No. 588 (T)/V/1985 (Old Petition No. 309 (T)/IV/80 (Ram Dev Dixist v. State of U. P. and 2 others ) whereby the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. V. Lucknow (opposite party No. 4) (hereinafter referred as the 'Tribunal') disallowed the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary for the period during 19th September, 1977 to 29th December, 1978 during which the petitioner had remained out of job in consequence of termination order dated 19th September, 1977 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The Tribunal took the view that reinstatement of the petitioner vide order dated 27th November, 1978 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), which contained a clause to the effect that the employee shall be allowed to join his duties only after submitting an application that he shall be treated on leave without pay.

(2.) The petitioner claimed that he was appointed on the post of Stenographer vide order dated 2nd June, 1976 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The case of the petitioner, before the Tribunal, was that his services were terminated since one Sri M. D. Pandey, Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax, Agra Range, Agra) (opposite party No. 3) wanted to accommodate one Km. Laxmi Chabra, The petitioner apprehending adverse action requested for his transfer from Agra to Kashganj. It was his misfortune that he, in spite of transfer order being passed, was relieved at Agra rather his services were sought to be terminated vide order dated 19th September. 1977 (Annexure-2). The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, challenged the said order of termination by filing representation before the Government of Uttar Pradesh ; a true copy of the representation has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Consequently, an order dated 27th November. 1978 (Anncxure-4 to the petition) was passed.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that after aforementioned order dated 27th November, 1978 was issued, the petitioner was not allowed to resume charge in compliance to the said order of the Government. The petitioner was, however, permitted to join duty after filing claim petition and he is working as such ever since then. According to the petitioner he, being aggrieved in the aforesaid circumstances, preferred the above referred Claim Petitions No. 588 (T)/V/1985 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The Deputy Commissioner (E), Sales-tax, Agra Range, Agra. (opposite party No. 2) and Sri M. D. Pandey Deputy Commissioner (E). Sales-tax-Agra Range Agra (opposite party No. 3) filed their separate written statements before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit and thereafter the Tribunal, after hearing the parties rejected the claim petition with the following observations :