Sattar Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17384 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sattar Khan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Azhar Hussain,Byas Kumar Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2.

¶2Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner's services as Conductor were terminated vide order dated

31.07.1999 against which he preferred a representation under the regulations applicable to employees of the U.P.S.R.T.C. and said representation was rejected by the Regional Manager, Taj Depo, Agra vide order dated 26.02.2002. It has been further submitted that petitioner against the order dated 26.02.2002 has filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 2 but till date said appeal has not been decided.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that once appeal has been filed it is bounden duty of the Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the said appeal within a reasonable period.

¶4On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that pleadings in the writ petition are absolutely vague and it does not come out as to under what provision appeal has been filed and whether such appeal is maintainable before the Respondent No. 2 or not.

¶5I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that in the writ petition it has been stated that services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31.07.1999 against which representation was filed and was rejected by the Regional Manager vide order dated 26.02.2002. Petitioner thereafter has filed an appeal before Respondent No. 2.

¶6So far as the issue of maintainability of the appeal under the regulations before the Respondent No. 2 is concerned, it is always open for the Respondent No. 2 to consider the said issue while deciding the appeal.

¶7Be that as it may, once the appeal has been filed it should have been decided by the Respondent No. 2.

¶8In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide petitioner's appeal filed on 24.05.2002 if, it is available in the record before the Respondent No. 2 and is maintainable under the regulations. The aforesaid decision shall be taken in two months from the date of service of this order. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Gaurav High Court of Judicature at Allahabad