AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant putting to challenge an order of this Court dated 27.02.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4055 of 2024. By the said order, the appellant’s writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been dismissed, mainly, on the ground that with the similar prayer, the present appellant had approached this Court earlier by filing writ petition registered as W.P.(C) No.41866 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 02.02.2022 with a direction to dispose of the appellant’s representation (Annexure-6 to the said writ petition).
Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the relief, as the appellant had sought for in the earlier writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.41866 of 2021, was different from that sought in the subsequent writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.4055 of 2024. He submits that in the earlier writ petition, the appellant had sought for a direction for disposal of his representation. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel, however, does not dispute the factual aspect that in the earlier representations, the appellant had claimed promotion to the post of Professor in the discipline of Zoology retrospectively with effect from 03.08.1988 with all consequential, financial and service benefits including the retiral and pensionary benefits etc.
It is peculiar to note that after the aforesaid writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.41866 of 2021 was disposed of by an order dated 02.02.2022, the appellant chose to file an interlocutory application in a disposed of matter for implementation of the said order dated 02.02.2022.
Subsequently, the writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.4055 of 2024 was filed with the following prayer:
“The petitioner most respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to allow the writ petition, issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the Opp. Parties to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Professor in the discipline of Zoology w.e.f. 03.08.1988 retrospectively and give him all the consequential financial and service benefits including retiral benefits and pension accrued out of the same and pass such other or further order or orders as are deemed just and proper.”
Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the respondents did not dispose of the appellant’s representation despite this Court’s direction by order dated 02.02.2022 the appellant had no other option but to file the second writ petition. The said submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, in the Court’s opinion, is completely misconceived.
If the appellant had any grievance relating to non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 02.02.2022, he could have filed an application alleging disobedience of this Court’s order. The learned Single Judge has, in our opinion, rightly dismissed the appellant’s writ petition.
We do not find any merit in the present intra-Court appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed.
It, however, goes without saying that the appellant shall be at liberty to pursue his representation in this regard before the appropriate authority in the light of this Court’s order dated 02.02.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.41866 of 2021.
......…………………………..