Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court has passed the order dated 01.08.2019 as under:-
"Heard Sri Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notices for the opposite parties have been accepted by the office of learned CSC.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Additional Director w.e.f. 26.10.1989, on the post of Director w.e.f. 1.6.1990 and on the post of Director General w.e.f. 14.2.1991 i.e. the date from which the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while providing the aforesaid promotions notionally, pension of the petitioner be revised. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of order dated 26.11.2018, the opposite parties have denied the benefit of promotion and consequential benefits to the petitioner without considering the factual and legal matrix of the issue and the petitioner has been discriminated with identically placed persons and even with juniors in her service tenure having no cogent reasons to that effect.
The matter requires consideration.
Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week.
List this petition on 29th August, 2019.
On the next date, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel shall produce the relevant records relating to the petitioner."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the copy of letter dated 27.08.2019 preferred by the Special Secretary of the Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow addressing to the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow enclosing therewith the copy of one claim petition bearing Claim Petition No.95 of 2019; Smt. (Dr.) Shashi Trivedi vs. State of U.P. & another, which has been filed by the present petitioner before the State Public Services Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow.
I have gone through the claim petition bearing Claim Petition No.95 of 2019 and find that for the same relief the petitioner has already approached the Public Services Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.11.2018 and in the present writ petition the petitioner has also assailed the order dated 26.11.2018.
Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court wants to impose the heavy cost upon the petitioner while dismissing the writ petition, but since the petitioner is about 83 years of age, therefore, I refrain myself to impose the cost.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed being misconceived.
Order Date :- 29.8.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]