Back
1999 Supreme(All) 752
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. K. Seth
RAM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTTER PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 20520 Of 1999
Decided On : 05/18/1999
M.A.Zaidi, Vikas Chandra Tripathi
Relief sought in a writ petition should be within the scope of the petition and there should be a fresh cause of action for filing a new petition.
Headnote:
Misconceived - Employment Termination - The court dismissed the writ petition as the relief sought could have been claimed within the scope of an earlier writ petition. The petitioner was advised to raise the questions in the pending writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was suspended and faced a disciplinary proceeding resulting in termination. He filed a writ petition seeking payment of salary, suspension allowance, and annual increment, which was dismissed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the writ petition to be misconceived as the relief sought could have been claimed within the scope of an earlier writ petition. The petitioner was advised to raise the questions in the pending writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the relief sought in the writ petition could be claimed within the scope of an earlier writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief sought in the present writ petition could have been prayed within the scope of the earlier writ petition, and there was no fresh cause of action for the petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was advised to agitate the questions in the pending writ petition if advised to do so. No order as to cost was given.
( 1 ) THE petitioner alleges that he was suspended and subjected to a disciplinary proceeding which ultimately resulted into termination of his service. The petitioner has challenged the said order in writ petition No. Nil of 1994 wherein an interim was granted staying the operation of the order dated 24. 7. 1993. The said writ petition is still pending. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has claimed that he may be paid salary due from 24. 1. 1994 to 15. 7. 1996 and suspension allowance for the period between 14. 7. 1991 and 24. 7. 1993 and also to pay annual increment and decide his representation.
( 2 ) THE question of subsistence allowed if not already paid can be decided in the pending writ petition. The question of payment of full salary is dependent on the outcome of the decision in the pending writ petition. Unless the order of termination is set aside, there is no question of payment of full salary for the period after 24. 7. 1993 viz. , the date of termination. The question of annual increment is also dependent on the result of the said writ petition. This writ petition is therefore wholly misconceived.
( 3 ) IN fact the very relief which is being sought in this petition can very well be prayed within the scope and ambit of the earlier writ petition. There is no fresh cause of action for the petition in the present writ petition. Inasmuch as on the basis of the interim order passed in the said writ petition the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is founded. For the relief based on such interim order, the second writ petition cannot be maintained. Therefore, after hearing learned counsel for petitioner Shri M. A. Zaidi and learned counsel for the respondents Shri Vikas Chandra Tripathi, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground mentioned above.
( 4 ) HOWEVER, it will be open to the petitioner to agitate all these questions in the pending writ petition if he is so advised. There will be however no order as to cost.
.
