The court dismissed a writ petition seeking reinstatement as a Pump Operator, noting the petitioner failed to challenge the termination order of 16 May 2017 and found no ground to countenance the prayer.
Reinstatement of the petitioner as a Pump Operator was denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 81
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2626 of 2020
Petitioner :- Akhilanand Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrav, the learned Standing Counsel.
The Court finds no ground to countenance the prayer as made in the petition which principally is for reinstatement of the petitioner as a Pump Operator. As per the own showing of the petitioner, his services were dispensed with on 16 May 2017. There is no challenge to that termination nor does the petitioner appear to have taken any steps to assail the same.
In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner, if so advised, to pursue an appropriate remedy in respect of the order of termination.
Order Date :- 18.2.2020 Vivek Kr.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petitioner can be granted reinstatement when he has not challenged the order of his termination.
Whether this petition in writ jurisdiction is maintainable to seek reinstatement of a terminated employee without assailment of the termination order.
Akhilanand Singh
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
