Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1563
2002 (5) AWC 4131
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.
C.M.W.P. No. 46408 of 2002
Decided on October 28, 2002
Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Versus
Secretary, Ministry of Co-operative, Government of U. P., Lucknow and others
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Employment Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Locus Standi - Service Reinstatement - The petitioner lacked standing to challenge the reinstatement order as it was a matter between the employer and the reinstated employee. The court relied on the decision in Chandra Gupta v. Government of India and held that a third party cannot challenge the reinstatement order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the reinstatement of respondent No. 6 in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the reinstatement order based on the decision in Vijay Prakash Dixit v. State of U. P. and the interpretation of the law in Chandra Gupta v. Government of India.
Issues: Locus Standi, Challenge to Reinstatement Order
Ratio Decidendi: A third party cannot challenge a reinstatement order as it is a matter between the employer and the reinstated employee.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Awadhesh Rai.
Counsel for the Respondents: S.C.
M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11.10.2002, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition by which respondent No. 6 has been reinstated in service.
3. In our opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19069 of 2002, Vijay Prakash Dixit v. State of U. P., decided on 10.5.2002. In that decision, this Court took the view that in view of the decision of the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Chandra Gupta v. Government of India, 1995 SCC (L & S) 210, the contrary view of the two-Judge Bench decision in Lakhi Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1655, is not good law. Hence, a third party cannot challenge the impugned order since it is matter between the employer and respondent No. 6.
4. The writ petition is dismissed.
