AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
There is an averment that prior to 1st August, 1990, the husband of the Petitioner was working in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF). This averment has not been corroborated by any evidence. No step has been taken to bring on record the order by which the husband of the Petitioner was allegedly asked to discharge the duties of the post of ACF on any basis on or prior to 1st August, 1990.
We were about to dismiss the writ petition, only on that ground, in as much as the sole claim here is payment of actual salary of ACF from 1st August, 1990. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought to rely on an interim order passed in earlier writ petition to substantiate the said contention. An interim order is neither a precedent nor can be treated as an evidence in law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also purported to rely on a letter, said to have been written by one officer of the Department to another officer of the Department, where also it was allegedly acknowledged that the husband of the Petitioner was working in the post of ACF prior to 1st August, 1990. Such a letter too cannot be treated as a piece of evidence to substantiate that, in fact, the husband of the Petitioner was working as ACF with effect from or prior to 1st August, 1990.
However, since the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought for an adjournment to bring on record appropriate evidence, we are adjourning this matter for two weeks. In the event, on that date, appropriate evidence is not brought on record, we shall be constrained to dismiss this writ petition with such exemplary cost, so that the same sends an appropriate signal to the litigants not to file frivolous writ petition.