Justice Suneet Kumar dismissed a second writ petition filed by the retired petitioner seeking payment of misc. advance deducted from gratuity and pension, holding it not maintainable as the earlier petition was dismissed on 18.12.2019.
Petitioner was directed to pay misc. advance of Rs. 500,277.60 withdrawn from gratuity and pension.
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. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7766 of 2021
Petitioner :- Bhavesh Chandra Parashar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:
"(i) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2, Chief Engineer (Distribution), Bareilly Region, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Katju Marg, Bareilly to pay misc. advance payment amount of Rs. 500,277.60 in pursuance of the recommendation letter dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) to the petitioner which was deducted out of gratuity and pension at the time of his retirement from service within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
It is urged that petitioner came to be retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2003. It appears that due to pending inquiry gratuity was not paid pursuant to the order dated 01.09.2008, passed by the second respondent- Chief Engineer (Distribution) Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Katju Marg, Bareilly.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, at the outset, submits that the instant petition is a second writ petition, whereas, the petitioner had earlier filed a petition being Writ-A No. 6548 of 2009, wherein, the impugned order was under challenge, further a direction was sought regarding payment of the retiral dues. He further submits that the earlier writ petition came to be dismissed on 18.12.2019.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that upon dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the second writ petition will not be maintainable for the same relief. In any case, the second writ petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable but a misuse of the process of Court.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Rameez
Digitally signed by SUNEET KUMAR Date: 2021.09.22 17:56:16 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second writ petition filed by the petitioner for the same relief and cause of action is maintainable.
Bhavesh Chandra Parashar
State of U.P.
Chief Engineer (Distribution), Bareilly Region, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
