- (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a driver on 23.03.1997 by the Executive Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited alongwith 42 other persons and was subsequently terminated, aggrieved the Bijli Karmchari Sangh filed Writ Petition No. 1642 of 1979 (U.P. Bijali Karamchari Sangh and others Versus U.P. State Electricity Board and another) which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.09.1989. The operative portion of the order is extracted below: "In view of the above these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties terminating the service of the petitioners are quashed. The petitioners would be treated in the service with effect from the date when their services were terminated illegally and they are also entitled to the consequential benefits. No order as to costs."
(2.) THE order was not complied with. The petitioners filed contempt petition which was dismissed on the ground of delay. In compliance of the judgment and order dated 27.09.1989 an Office Memorandum No. 2442 dated 17.12.1992 was issued regularizing the services of the petitioner on the post of Coolie, and thereafter, on 20.01.1997 the petitioner was promoted as motor driver. The grievance of the petitioner was that the petitioner was not being paid his backwages pursuant to the judgment and order dated 27.09.1989 which the petitioner was entitled for the period 17.11.1979 till the date of his reinstatement in 1992. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 41770 of 2005 which was disposed of on 24.05.2005 directing the General Manager, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Allahabad to consider and decide the petitioner's representation. The order is extracted below: "The petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver with the Respondent -Corporation on 23.3.1977. Thereafter by an order dated 17.11.1979 the services of the petitioner had been terminated. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 773 of 1979 which was allowed on 27.9.1989. However, after the petitioner filed a contempt petition, he was re -instated in service on 2.1.1997. The contention of the petitioner is that although he is being paid salary from 1997 onwards regularly but for the period 17.11.1979 till the date of re -reinstatement in service on 2.1.1997 he would be entitled to the payment of salary in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in his writ petition. It has been submitted that with regard to his grievance the petitioner has already filed representation before the concerned authorities above. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case if, with regard to his grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner files afresh comprehensive representation before the General Manager, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd, Allahabad, respondent no. 3, along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the same. With the aforesaid observation/direction this is disposed of. No order as to cost."
(3.) PURSUANT to order dated 24.05.2005, the General Manager (D), Allahabad Zone, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., respondent no. 2, by the impugned order dated 07.03.2006 has dismissed the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is raising a plea after entering into a compromise way back in the year 1992, the order further states that the Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1992, as well as, the consequential promotional order passed in 1997, was enjoyed by the petitioner through out his career and was not challenged further this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 41770 of 2005 and the Contempt Petition No. 1121 of 1992, thus the petitioner basically is raising a grievance with regard to the alleged non compliance of the order dated 27.09.1989 passed in the earlier writ petition after a lapse of 27 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order dated 27.09.1989 till date has not been complied with and the petitioner is entitled to backwages, further no agreement was entered by the petitioner with the respondents.;