Allahabad High Court
Smt. Omwati vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 24 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 655
Bench: Govind Mathur, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1536 of 2009 Appellant :- Smt. Omwati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Miss Rashmi Tripathi, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Anil Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Govind Mathur, Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Govind Mathur, C.J.) This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 21.08.2009 passed by learned Single Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70542 of 2006 (Smt. Omwati Versus State of U.P. and others).
Precisely, the issue involved in this appeal is that whether learned Single Bench was right in dismissing the petition for writ in view of the fact that a writ petition founded on same cause of action was earlier preferred and withdrawn by the petitioner without keeping any liberty to file a fresh petition.
Succinctly, facts of the case are that an appointment was accorded to the petitioner on compassionate grounds under an order dated 09.02.1991. By another order dated 01.10.1991, she was terminated from service. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, she preferred a petition for writ, i.e., Writ No. 30900 of 1991 that came up for hearing before the Court on 01.03.2004. The writ petition aforesaid came to be dismissed in following terms:-
"Heard Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. During the course of judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that he may be allowed to withdraw this writ petition. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the said writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Interim order dated 26.10.1991 stands vacated."
From perusal of the order aforesaid, it is apparent that permission was granted by the Court to withdraw the writ petition after hearing that and during the course of dictating the judgment. It is also apparent that no liberty was granted by the Court to file a fresh petition for writ. Though the writ petition was dismissed, but in the light of an interim order that was earlier passed, the appellant-petitioner was allowed to continue in service. On knowing about dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents terminated the appellant-petitioner from service under an order dated 05.05.2005. A challenge was given to the order dated 05.05.2005 by way of filing a petition for writ, i.e., Writ Petition No. 46582 of 2005 that came to be disposed of on 07.09.2006 by permitting the petitioner to move a representation before the District Magistrate, Agra ventilating her grievance. The District Magistrate, Agra considered the representation and rejected the same by holding that the appointment given on compassionate grounds was erroneous. The appellant-petitioner again approached the writ Court to challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate and that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned. Learned Single Bench held that after dismissal of the writ petition No. 30900 of 1991, there was no occasion for the petitioner to challenge the order of termination by way of filing a separate writ petition.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the cause of action in the subsequent petition for writ is different and that arose on disposal of the representation by the District Magistrate, Agra. It is asserted that learned Single Bench erred while arriving at the conclusion that second writ petition was also founded on the same cause of action.
Having considered all the facts, we do not find any merit in the argument advanced. At the first instance, service of the appellant was terminated by an order dated 01.10.1991. A challenge to the same was given by way of filing a petition for writ. The writ petition aforesaid came to be dismissed on 01.03.2004, being withdrawn. As a matter of fact, the appellant-petitioner would have been terminated from service immediately thereafter, but due to ignorance relating to dismissal of the writ petition, she was allowed to continue in service. In the year 2005, on knowing about the dismissal of the writ petition, she was discontinued from service. The appellant then preferred a petition for writ that came to be disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Agra to consider and decide a representation that was to be submitted by the petitioner.
The facts stated above clearly indicates that cause was the original order of termination dated 01.10.1991 and the cause aforesaid came to an end on dismissal of the writ petition being withdrawn. The termination of the appellant acquired finality on dismissal of the writ petition on 01.03.2004. The same cause could have not been agitated by the appellant merely on the count that no information was given by her about dismissal of the writ petition and she continued in service as a consequence to an interim order which too came to be vacated by the Court at the time of dismissal of the writ petition on 01.03.2004. Learned Single Bench, as such, rightly dismissed the petition for writ. No interference therein is warranted.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020
Shubham
(Samit Gopal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)