LexSTATE OF UP AND ANR. versus LABH CHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. v. LABH CHAND FEBRUARY 9, 1993 B [L.M. SHARMA, CJ AND N. VENKATACHALA, J.] Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 22&-Availability of altemative remedy-Admissibility of Writ Petition without exhausting legal remedy al'Oilable-Order of Single Judge bye-passing findings of the Division Bench C not sustainable. The respondent served a notice on the Secretary U.P. Government, for settling his outstanding claims to enable him to seek voluntary retirement. But the Governor by his order, compulsorily retired him from service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the order of the Governor, the D respondent directly filed a writ petition in the High Court. The same was dismissed on the ground that the respondent bye-passed the alternate remedy available to him. The respondent filed another writ petition in the High Court which was heard by the Single Judge, was, bye-passing the order of the Division Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the E impugned order the directed the U.P. Government to treat the respondent as having retired voluntarily. F Challenging the said order, the appellants have contended that the Single Judge could not have over-ruled the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the appellants; that since the Division Bench of the same High Court dismissed the Petition of the respondent for not exhausting the alternate remedy available, the Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain that wTit petition; that respondent's issuance of a notice to the Government seeking permission for the voluntary retirement in the meantime was untenable; and that the view of the Single Judge that a G departmental disciplinary enquiry pending against the respondent inhibited the Government from compulsorily retiring him was also H untenable. Allowing the appeal this Court, HELD : 1.1. That when a Judge of a Single Judge Bench of a High 878 4 .. ' - ··( STATE OF U.P. 1•. LABH CHA>'ID [VENKATACHALA, J.] 879 Court is required to entertain a second writ petition of a person on a A matter, he cannot, as a matter of course, entertain such petition, if an earlier writ petition of the same person on the same matter had been dismissed already by another Single Bench or Division Bench of the same High Court, even if such dismissal was on the ground of !aches or on the ground of non-availing of alternate remedy. (8890] 1.2. This judgment should not be understood as coming in the way of the respondent in approaching t_he U.P. Public Service Tribunal for necessary relief in the matter, if he is so entitled. [890F] • B 77ia1t Si1tgh Nathmal & Ors. v. Mazid, Superillte1tdellt of Taxes, (1964] C 655 SCR, relied. B. Prabhakar Rao & Ors. v. State of Andl1ra Pradesh and Ors. etc., AIR 1986 SC 219, 227; Da1tjagu & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1457, 1466 and L. Hirday Narai1t v. i!lcome Tax Officer, Bareitly, AIR 1971 SC 33, 36, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 498 of 1993. From the Judgment and order dated 19.2.92 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 7498/90. A.K. Goel for the Appellants. Labh Chand (In-person) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. Leave granted. D E F Respondent who was in the service of the U.P. Government as an Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Banda, served a notice dated December 19, 1989 on the Secretary, Area Dcvelopmcnl-2, U.P. Govern- G ment, Lucknow seeking from the Government, settlement of his outstand- ing claims by March 31, 1990 and grant of permission to him lo retire from service voluntarily from that date. It was stated in that notice that the respondent's outstanding claims remaining unsettled by the Government before March 31, 1990, shall be settled before June 30, 1990 and he shall H 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R. A then be allowed to retire voluntarily. However, changing his stance, the respondent wrote a letter dated December 20, 1989 to the self-same y-~ Secretary seeking grant of the Government's permission to retire voluntari- B c ly from March 31, 1990 even if his outstanding claims with it were not settled by that date. But, the Government, did not grant permission to the respondent to voluntarily retire from its service with effect from March 31, 1990 as had been sought by him. Instead, the Governor of U .P. purporting to exercise his powers under F.R. 56 of the Financial Hand Book,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.