Allahabad High Court
Dr Girja Shankar vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 4 July, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108219 Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8816 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dr Girja Shankar Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mansoor Ahmad,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Singh,Avneesh Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Shri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mansoor Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1, Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Shri Avaneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.
2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 4.9.2023 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut rejecting the petitioner's representation claiming payment of pension, fixation of salary and other benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of making reference under Section 68 of the State Universities Act 1973 before the Chancellor. He further submitted that earlier the Vice Chancellor had passed an order dated 22.7.2022 against the petitioner and the petitioner had challenged the same on 13.11.2020 and the petitioner had availed the remedy under Section 68 of the State Universities Act, and after the Chancellor allowed the reference, the matter was remanded to the Vice Chancellor. After remand, the Vice Chancellor had passed the impugned order dated 4.9.2023 against which the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy under Section 68 of the State Universities Act.
4. Replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, Shri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that as the Vice Chancellor has simply reiterated this stand taken in the earlier order, which already stands set aside by the Chancellor, no useful purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy before the Chancellor.
5. When the Chancellor has already allowed the reference made by the petitioner against the earlier order passed by the Vice Chancellor, there appears to be no reason for the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy under Section 68 of the State Universities Act.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, it would not be proper to entertain the writ petition bypassing the statutory remedy available to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under Section 68 of the State Universities Act.
.
[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.] Order Date :- 4.7.2024
-Amit K-