1.This petition has been filed with the prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of outstanding salary on the post of Conductor, which has been withheld since the year 2004.
2.It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Conductor on contract basis in December, 2003.
3.Contract of service or the letter of appointment has not been appended with the petition so as to disclose prima facie case in favour of the petitioner to receive salary.
4.In para 5 of the petition it has been pleaded that the respondent no.3 viz. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Faizabad, directed the petitioners to make a deposit of security money to the tune of Rs.2000/-. It has been pleaded that vide Annexure-1 (Colly.), the petitioners made the deposit.
5.Other than the fact that documents placed on record as Annexure-1 are not readable, the memo issued by respondent no.3 directing the petitioner to make deposit of security money has not been placed on record. Thus, the context of which document or demand, Annexure-1, has been placed on record, is not made clear from the pleadings, therefore, no judicial notice of Annexure-1 can be taken.
6.In para-9 of the petition reference has been made to Annexure-2, that is a representation. In the representation, there is a reference to one Sultanpur Loan Committee under which the petitioners allege that they have been serving respondent no.3. The context or basis of Annexure-2 has not been shown to the court and, therefore, judicial notice of the said document can also not be taken.
7.It has been vehemently argued that a person similarly situated had filed Civil Writ Petition No.6889(SS) of 2005, Mohammad Aslam v. State of U.P. & ors., which was disposed of vide order dated 24.10.2005 directing the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders for payment of wages. It has been prayed that similar order be passed.
8.The petitioners have not shown from the annexures appended with the petition either that the petitioners are the employees of the respondents or that salary is outstanding to be paid to the petitioners. It has not been shown as to what was the salary payable to the petitioners and what portion thereof and for which period the same has not been paid.
9.A writ court cannot burden the executive with directions to decide representations, unless the petitioner is able to show his/her prima facie right to a decision on a representation. Ordinarily, on vague pleadings a prayer is made for decision on representation, which the executive has to decide. If decision is not taken within reasonable time, contempt of court petition is filed to seek directions which burdens the judicial system with unnecessary litigation.
10.The petitioners so as to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus are required to show that they have a legal right to compel the respondent to do, or refrain from doing any specific act and the said respondent has failed in performance of those duties. The petitioners have not been able to show from the pleadings and annexures that they have a legal right. In such circumstances, a writ in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued, as prayed for in this petition.
11.Civil Writ Petition is a civil suit which is required to be supplemented with the evidence on which the petitioner chooses to rely, in view of its nature. Not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and documents annexed in case of a writ petition. When a writ petitioner raises a point of law which is required to be substantiated by facts, he must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and accompanying documents. If he is a respondent, the facts asserted are required to be proved from the written statement/counter affidavit and supporting documents. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the written statement/counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point.
12.Pleadings include documents placed on record as annexures. When a document is placed on record alongwith a writ petition, it is explained in the body of the writ petition in regard to its relevance and what ground of challenge emerges therefrom. The document might be necessary to lay proper foundation of the writ petition or the counter claim/written statement, as the case may be, or to formulate a ground of challenge to the impugned action or, in the case of counter claim, to disprove the facts asserted by the petitioner. The respondent thereby is given an opportunity to respond to the pleadings in the writ petition and appended annexures, so as to clarify his stand and point of view.
13.In the case in hand, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not been able to show any prima facie right to decision on their representation and, therefore, no ground is made out to refer the matter to the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners.
14.In view of the observations made above, this petition is found lacking in material particulars and has been filed without proper and relevant foundation. The petitioners have not even been able to show that they are employees serving under the respondents. Under such circumstances, no direction can be issued to the respondents to either release the salary payable to the petitioners, or to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners.
15.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2012/A.Nigam