Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri. A.K. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Shyam Lal Dhanudhari, learned State Counsel.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work and discharge his duties on the post of Collection Amin treating him as regular Amin with effect from 15.7.1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7575(S/S) of 2011 (Prem Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 17.10.2011. The said order on reproduction reads as under: By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work and discharge his duties on the post of Collection Amin treating the petitioner as Regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 16.07.1986. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been settled by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4031 (S/S) of 2001, Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others. In another Writ Petition No. 9482 (S/B) of 2008, Dinesh Pratap Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. and others, this Court by means of order dated 09.02.2010 remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge with the observation that judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 4031 (S/S) of 2001, Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others has become final and cannot be re -considered. Against the said judgment, State preferred Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of judgment and order dated 13.12.2010 dismissed the Special Leave Petition with the observation that no ground for interference has been found so far as Pratap Narain Pandey's case is concerned. Subsequently, this Court considered the issue in another Writ Petition No. 748 (S/S) of 2011, Ram Milan Dubey and others Vs. State of U.P. and gave the benefit of judgment and order dated 19th of August, 2006 passed in writ petition no. 4031 (S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Narayan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others). The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed in writ petition no. 4031 (S/S) of 2001 and, therefore, he deserves the same treatment. On query, learned Standing Counsel admits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment and order passed in writ petition no. 4031 (S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Narayan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others). I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. On examination, this Court finds that the petitioner's case is covered by the judgment and order passed in judgment and order passed in writ petition no. 4031 (S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Narayan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others). Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of finally with a direction to opposite parties to grant benefit of judgment and order dated 19th August, 2006 passed in writ petition no. 4031 (S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Narayan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others) to the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the above said order passed by this Court.;