Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40797 of 2001 Petitioner :- Randhir Singh Respondent :- The Chief Engineer (Jal Vidyut) U.P.P.C.Ltd. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.K.Mehrotra,S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. This case is listed peremptorily. Sri Durga Prasad Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, has sought adjournment on the ground of illness. Earlier also, i.e., on 05.10.2018, he sought adjournment on the account of illness and this Court passed following order:
"1. Passed over for the day on account of illness of Sri Durga Prasad Srivastava, learned counel for petitioner.
3. List peremptorily in the next cause list."
2. Since this case is listed peremptorily, I decline request for adjournment and reject the same. None is present on behalf of petitioner to press this writ petition though it has been called in revise. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.
3. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:
"a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 30.8.2001 passed by the respondent no.1, contained in Annexure-I to this writ petition.
b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to pay the arrear of salary with effect from 21.12.1965 to 31.3.1969 alongwith other consequential emoluments and also to pay third time bound pay scale on completion of 19 years of service from 21.12.65 to the petitioner.
c. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent no.2 to make payment pursuant to the letter dated 24.7.2001 of respondent no.1, as mentioned in the impugned order dated 30.8.2001 (annexure- I)"
3. Having gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought, I 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 that 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 :- 26.10.2018 KA