Syed Azizul Hasan Rizvi vs Union of India and Others

Hon''ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aslam Khan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri I.H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India and perused the record.

Facts of the present case are that petitioner initially for redressal of his grievances against the transfer order dated 09.11.2010 (Annexure No. 2) has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 489 of 2010 along with other connected mater filed by similarly situated employees, allowed by judgment and order dated 12.10.2011 (Anneuxre No. 3).

Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to work and discharge his duties at Lucknow.

Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel further submits that thereafter the Union of India through Secretary Depart of Mines and others, approached this Court by filling Writ Petition No. 2029 (SB) of 2011 (Union of India and others Vs. Subhendu Roy & Others). On 13.12.2011, an order was passed, relevant portion is quoted hereinbelow:

In the meantime, the operation of impugned order dated 12.10.2011 shall remain stayed. Opposite parties may file counter affidavit within two weeks, rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.

List on 13.01.2012.

In view of the abvoesaid facts, Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel submits that although by means of the judgment and order dated 12.10.2011, other connected matters are decided by teh official respondents and challenged the order passed by Tribual only in the case of petitoern before this Court, the said action on the part of official respondent is illegal and arbitrary in nature, thus violative or Article 44 of the Constitution of India. So, the present writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:

(i) to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay salary to the petitioner month to month to which he is entitled under law.

After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is working in Geological Survey of India, Northern Region, Lucknow, which is a Department of Central Government, so as per the law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 11205 and in the case of Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others, , the said relief cannot be granted by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

However, as prayed, the petitioner is permitted either to make an application/file counter affidavit in the pending Petition No. 2029 (SB) of 2011 before this Court or to approach the appropriate form for redressal of his grievances, if he so advised.

With the above observations, writ petition is dismissed.