Sri Sobaran Lal Katiyar vs State of U.P.

We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of Special Appeal.

Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4982 (SS) of 2011, inter alia, with two main prayers which are as below:

That the Writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash the impugned order dated 30.7.11 contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.

That a writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued commanding the opposite parties to release all the post retirement dues of the Petitioner (except leave encashment) immediately along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its actual i.e. 1.4.11 till the date of actual payment of all the post retirement dues as well as 6% penal interest for mental harassment to the Petitioner.

That any other order or direction which deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the opposite party.

That the cost of writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.

However, according to learned Counsel, learned Single Judge has addressed only prayer No. 1 in the judgment whereas prayer No. 2 did not engage his attention. Learned Counsel also submitted that towards prayer No. 1, the time for retaining the official accommodation was extended only upto 31.08.2011, but since construction of Petitioner''s private house has not yet been completed, therefore, this Court may consider to extend the period for retaining the said accommodation till post retiral dues are cleared which is the subject matter of prayer No. 2 of the writ petition.

On the other hand, Smt. Sangita Chandra, learned State counsel submitted that both the aforesaid prayers are inter-related and since prayer No. 1 has not been allowed, prayer No. 2 will also fall flat on that count. Learned State counsel is not in a position to inform as to whether Appellant has been granted provisional pension or not, since apparently there is No. pending departmental proceedings against him.

On due consideration of rival submissions, we are not inclined to entertain the special appeal for the reason that if the second prayer in the writ petition has not engaged the attention of the learned single judge, the Appellant may file a review. Moreover, learned single judge has already extended the time for retaining the official accommodation till 31.08.2011, towards relief No. 1 which is of course not dependent upon grant of relief No. 2. Hence, the special appeal is dismissed.