Dismissed

Badri Datt v. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Another

Uttarakhand HC1 May 2019WPSS/909/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court condoned 124-day delay in filing a review application. The application sought to review a judgment where the Managing Director enhanced punishment by invoking Regulation 69A against maintainable service regulations. The court held no good ground for review was made out and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; review application dismissed as no good ground is made out.

Badri Datt Vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

Delay Condonation Application No. 16463 of 2017 Review Application No. 1301 of 2017 In

¶2

WPSS No. 909 of 2010

¶3

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶4

Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for review applicant/ respondents.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

There is a delay of 124 days in filing review application. Delay condonation application is not seriously opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and delay in filing the review application is condoned.

¶8

Review Application (MCC NO. 1301 of 2017) has been filed by Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation seeking review of the judgment dated 03.07.2017 on the ground that writ-petitioner had filed revision petition before Managing Director under Regulation 69A of UPSRTC (Other than Officers) Regulations, 1981, therefore, the Managing Director was justified in enhancing punishment imposed upon the petitioner.

¶9

It transpires that petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 15.07.2005 passed by Assistant Regional Manager, Dehradun. Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was partly allowed by the Regional Manager vide order dated 21.10.2005 and petitioner was reinstated in service, however, without any back wages or benefit of past service. Thereafter, petitioner filed another appeal before the Managing Director on 13.01.2006, which is on record as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petitioner. As per the

¶10

service Regulations applicable to the petitioner, second appeal does not lie in such matters, therefore, the said appeal ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable. However, the Managing Director by invoking powers available under Regulation 69A of the Service Regulations treated the said appeal as revision and enhanced the penalty to removal from service. It is, thus, apparent that the Managing Director wrongly invoked powers available under Regulation 69A for enhancing the punishment.

¶11

Thus, no good ground has been made out to review the judgment dated 03.07.2017. The review application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Navin

¶13

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 01.05.2019

Badri Datt v. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Datt v. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusum Lata Rana Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Sushma Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Inder Lal Sah Vs Ministry Of Agriculture and Others

Santosh Muni Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Miss Chandrakala Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others