AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 has been accepted by Sri Manish Jauhari while notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been accepted by respective Standing Counsels.
The controversy involved in the present special appeal is regarding the joining of the respondent No.1 in the State of U.P. as per the decision taken by the State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) regarding her request for joining in the State of U.P. by the orders dated 30.7.2004 and the relieving order dated 4.8.2004. The respondent No.1 had earlier filed a writ petition No.1113 (S/S) of 2005 in which an interim order was passed and was finally decided on 12.12.2007 with a direction that the representation preferred by petitioner (respondent herein) the may be considered expeditiously.
In the meantime, a fresh writ petition bearing No.5525 (S/S) of 2006 was filed challenging the the order dated 30.5.2006 by which the respondent was informed that she is an employee of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) and the relieving orders are bad. The said petition is still pending in which a direction was issued that the Secretary shall decide the representation but the representation preferred thereof was again rejected vide order dated 11.9.2008. Feeling aggrieved of this order the respondent without disclosing that the writ petition No.1113 (S/S) of 2005 has been dismissed of by the Court, filed the third writ petition No. 5820(S/S) of 2008 and again a prayer has been made for enforcing the orders dated 30.7.2004 and 4th August, 2004, and also for quashing of the order passed by the Secretary on the representation.
The interim order passed in writ petition No.5820 (S/S) of 2008 issuing a direction for posting the respondent No.1 on a proper post and for payment of salary is the order impugned in this special appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fact that the writ petition of the respondent No.1 filed in the year 2005 having been dismissed, the said fact ought to have been brought into the notice and by not doing so it is a case where orders could not be passed in favour of the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri Manish Jauhari says that the he individually was not aware of the said order, but says that the said writ petition was wrongly decided with the bunch of cases.
We find that the grievance raised by the appellant, therefore, under the circumstances, requires consideration in special appeal for which the parties pray that an early date be fixed.
Let the matter be listed in the week commencing 15th December, 2008.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 18.9.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.5820 (S/S) of 2008 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.
The records of writ petition No.1113 (S/S) of 2005 and writ petition No.5525 (S/S) of 2006 shall also be produced on that date by the office.