Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22338 of 2007 Petitioner :- Mrs. U.K. Sharma Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Addl. S.G.I.,H.N. Singh,Rajesh Srivastava,S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and no one appears for the respondents even in revised call.
The petitioner claims to have been working on the post of Principal in an institution namley Prabhat Senior Secondary School, Kanpur recognized by Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi.
The services of the petitioner have been terminated by order dated 10.07.2006. The petitioner has not questioned the legality of the termination order in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent number -2 to interfere in the matter and ensure and justice is done to the petitioner and in case any enquiry is done against the petitioner, it is done as per the accepted procedures and settled principles of law;
(b) to direct the respondent number -2 to ensure that the pay of the petitioner alongwith her financial dues alongwith the balance in salary which has remained unpaid till day as per the pay scale settled by the CBSE board are paid by the management (respondent number -3).
(c) to direct the respondent number -2 to ensure that the management clears the balance of pay which should have been paid to the petitioner as per the sanctioned norms of the CBSE board;
(d) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case; and
(e) to award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi/second respondent praying therein that the second respondent may interfere with the matter so that the petitioner may not suffer on account of arbitrary action of the third respondent which according to the petitioner has been sent by registered post.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the said representation has been received in the office of the second respondent. Further, since the petitioner has not questioned the legality of his termination order and more than 13 years have passed, therefore, in view of the said fact this Court does not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.11.2019 S.Sharma