Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61971 of 2015 Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the writ petition to the judgement and order dated 13.07.2015 passed by State Public Services Tribunal allowing respondents' Review Petition No. 65 of 2015 recalling judgement and order dated 22.05.2014 passed in Claim Petition No. 266 of 2011 and dismissing claim petition.
3. It is contended that review petition was filed on the ground that an order was passed by Principal Secretary, Medical and Health on 27.2.2012 dismissing petitioner's petition but that order was not challenged in claim petition and thus, this fact was concealed. Petitioner filed objection stating that order dated 27.2.2012 was never communicated to him but Tribunal has allowed review petition on the ground that order dated 27.2.2012 has not been challenged by petitioner.
4. Tribunal has specifically formulated a question whether order dated 27.2.2012 was communicated to petitioner or not. Tribunal while allowing review application and reversing its judgment dated 22.5.2014 has observed that since order dated 27.2.2012 was duly endorsed to petitioner-Yogendra Singh Chauhan and therefore it cannot be argued by him that it was never communicated. However a perusal of order dated 272.2012 reflects that except endorsement of copy to petitioner it did not clearly mention whether it was forwarded and actually communicated to him. Mere endorsement on the order cannot be made basis of finding that said order has, in fact been communicated to person concerned unless communication as a matter of fact, is demonstrated or shown to have been made without such evidence it cannot be said that there is a communication in the eyes of law. It is very strange that this aspect has not been taken into consideration by Tribunal. Without recording any finding of fact that order was actually communicated to petitioner such an interference could not have been drawn on a question of fact and for this reason, impugned order of Tribunal cannot be sustained.
5. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 13.07.2015 passed by State Public Services Tribunal is set aside. Tribunal is directed to decide claim petition afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Arvind