Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43294 of 2002 Petitioner :- Nirmala Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 6.12.1998 and 30.3.1999 Annexure No. 7 and 8 passed by the respondent No. 3 illegally, unlawfully and against law of natural justice and without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to place her view on the matter.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to treat the petitioner to work as Anganbari Karyakatri at Village Aganthara Tehsil Bisauli District Budaun and the petitioner deemed in continuation in service since 6.12.1998 with all consequential benefits including the seniority for the purpose of promotion in the post of Chief Supervisor of the Centre and 5 December, 1998 June, 1999 and distributing the Poshahar before Committee constituted by village Pradhan as per order Annexure No. 15.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent No. 3 to pay the help in honorarium for the month of December, 1998 to July, 1999 of the petitioner with 18% penel interest as the same was held up illegally and unlawfully as the petitioner was regularly attending the Centre and 5 December 1998 to June, 1999 and distributing the Poshahar before Comittee constituted by Village Pradhan as per order Annexure No. 15.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction by way of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no. 3 and 2 to decide representations dated 30.7.1999 and 30.11.1999 shown as Annexure No. 13 and 14 to this petition by speaking and reasoned order within 4 weeks.”
3. I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.
4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.
5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Siddhant Sahu