K.p.Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 24-6-1987 contained in Annexure V attached with the writ petition. He has also prayed for mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of the entire salary to the petitioner. There after general reliefs have been claimed.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as conductor in U. P. State Road Transport corporation in the year 1977. He was suspended on 5-7-1985. There after he was removed from service by the District Regional Manager, Karvi, Depot, Banda. Aggrieved by the order of the removal, the petitioner has approached this court and the order of removal was quashed by this court through Annexure I dated 11-9-1986 on 30-3-1987 a circular was issued which is Annexure II attached with the writ petition. In pursuance of the aforesaid circular, the petitioner had given an undertaking in writing on 13-4-1987 whereby he agreed to forego the arrears of his salary. The undertaking given by the petitioner is Annexure III to the present writ petition. Though Annexure IV, dated 16-4-1987 the petitioner was taken in service. Since then the petitioner had been discharging his duties sincerely. It appears that the petitioner has been put out of job due to Annexure V attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by Annexure V dated 24-6-1987 the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the constitution. There is no serious dispute between the parties about the facts involved in the present case. According to the petitioner he has been given a fresh appointment on 16-4-1987 through Annexure IV. According to the counsel for the opposite parties the petitioner has been given a job due to the order passed by the High Court contained in Annexure I attached with the writ petition. When the basis of the judgment of the High Court has been obliterated no exception can be taken to Annexure V attached with the writ petition and the present writ petition should be dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner and on this ground also, the writ petition deserves dismissal. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that according to sub-clause (2) of Annexure RA I, the action of the opposite parties putting the petitioner out of job cannot be sustained as Annexure RA I emphasizes that the direction contained in sub-clause (1) would not affect the circular dated 30-3-1987.
(3.) WE have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, we find some contradiction in Annexure RA I attached with the writ petition wherein following is the part of direction no. 1 : ".........Evam tadsambandhi adhikarita na hone ke adhar par nyayalaya adhikaran adhi dwara parit sahib adeshon ko mishprabhawi bana diya gaya hai." The ordinance of the year 1987 mentioned in Direction 1 of RA I has been upheld by this Court as valid. In sub-clause (2) of RA I it has been indicated that the Circular dated 30-3-1987 would not be affected by the Direction no. 1 contained in Annexure RA I. In this view of the matter the following contents of Annexure V attached with the writ petition do not appear as correct to us. ".........Atah ukt pariprekshya me parit adhesh sankhya sa. kshe, PR, banda, anu, 185......498, dinank 27-12-1985 yathavat raha tatha adesh sankhya J. R/Stha/Anu. 185-4274 dinanak 16-4-1987 dwara parit adesh swatah nishprabhavi ho gaya." ;