Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6634 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ishwar Chand Gupta Respondent :- Up Power Corporation Limited And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamla Kant Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Krishna,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Usha Kiran learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ajay Kumar for the respondents.
Petitioner was employed as Technical Grade-II employee in U.P. Power Corporation. A disciplinary action was initiated against him and he was placed under suspension since 2003. The disciplinary enquire was, however, not concluded and therefore, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.29770 of 2010, which was disposed of on 21.05.2010. It is thereafter that disciplinary proceedings were concluded and an order of punishment was passed against the petitioner on 11.01.2012. This order was not challenged by the petitioner. He continued to remain in employment and ultimately retired in the year 2016. It is thereafter that petitioner made a representation and when the same was not decided, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.40644 of 2017, which came to be disposed of vide following orders passed on 05.10.2017:
"Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Kamla Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Petitioner has claimed entitlement to various arrears of salary etc. as also post retiral dues claiming further benefit under the 6th Pay Commission. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contends that the petitioner was awarded punishment by order dated 11.1.2012 which has attained finality and therefore he is only entitled to the amounts in accordance with that order.
However, it is clear that the punishment order is on date 11.1.2012 whereas the petitioner retired on 31.10.2014. Sufficient time has elapsed since then. However, no part of the dues has been paid except that provisional pension has been paid to the petitioner. Petitioner has also made a representation in this regard on 28.7.2017 annexed with the writ petition.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction if petitioner files a fresh copy of the representation dated 28.7.2017 before the respondent no.3 within a period of two weeks from today, the said respondent shall decide the representation so made and pay out to the petitioner the amount which would be due keeping in mind the punishment order dated 11.1.2012."
The aforesaid order dated 05.10.2017 has not been annexed along with the writ petition and has been brought before the Court by Sri Ajay Kumar, appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner has not disclosed as to what happened to his representation in terms of the direction issued upon the aforesaid writ petition. It has also not been disclosed as to whether he had filed any representation pursuant to such order or not. This petition has now been filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to grant him various benefits and decide petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2019.
From the representation filed before the authorities, it appears that petitioner is trying to indirectly challenge the order of punishment passed against him on 11.01.2012. Since the petitioner has suppressed the fact about filing of the earlier writ petition, this Court is of the view that he has not approached this Court with clean hand. Petitioner is accordingly not entitled to any benefit nor any direction is liable to be issued in his favour.
The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Jitendra