B.C.Kandpal, A.C.J. - (1.) THIS writ petition No. 3316 (S/B) of 1997 (New No. 620 (S/B) of 2003), State of U.P. and others versus Sri Vikram Singh and another, has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 14.2.1997 passed by State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter re ferred to as the Tribunal') in Claim Pe tition No. 329/F/II/1988, Vikram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention here that this writ petition was previously heard by the Division Bench of this Court and this Court allowed the writ petition, vide Judgment and, order dated 6.4.2004. The respondent no. 1 against the aforesaid Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court filed the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground that no notice was given either to him or his counsel with regard to the transfer of his case to the State of Uttaranchal from the State of U.P., hence, he did not have any opportunity to place his case before the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court al though dismissed the Special Leave Petition but gave liberty to the peti tioner/respondent No.1 to approach the High Court. The respondent no. 1 thereafter filed recall application before this Court and in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition dated 3.9.2004, the recall application was allowed On 13.3.2007. With the result, this writ pe tition has been listed for final disposal before this Court. Heard Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder representing the State-pe titioners. None is present on behalf of respondent no. 1- Vikram Singh in spite of the sufficient service upon him. The cause-list also indicates that names of Advocates namely Sri Gopal Narain and Mrs. Nishat Intezar are printed for the respondents. The case was repeat edly called out but neither Mrs. Nishat Intezar nor Sri Gopal Narain have ap peared before the Court in order to place their arguments. Therefore, we have heard learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record in order to decide the petition.
(3.) BRIEF facts are that respondent no. 1- Vikram Singh filed the claim pe tition before the Tribunal for quashing the order by which services of Vikram Singh were terminated. Respondent no. 1-Vikram Singh by way of the writ pe tition has also prayed for his reinstate ment. The grounds taken by Vikram Singh in the petition are that he was employed on the post of Van Daroga' on 1.10.1971 and is still working as such on that very post. The respond ent no. 1 also alleged that his salary for December 1984, January 1985 and February 1985 has not been paid to him in spite of representations made by him. It is further alleged that his pay from July 1986 to October 1986 has also not been paid to him. It is further alleged by respondent no. 1 in the claim petition filed by him before the Tribu nal that his salary for February 1987 was paid to him in December Iro7 and thereafter he is entitled to get the in terest @ 18.5% on delayed payment. The respondent no. 1 further alleged that T.A. bill amounting to Rs. 4500/-has also not been passed so far and one adverse entry for the year 1987-88 has been awarded to him and this adverse entry was received by him on 15.5.1988. Against this adverse entry, he made the representation but the same is pending as yet. It is further al leged that the service of respondent no. 1 has been terminated by order dated 24.9.1988 and thereafter he got his claim petition amended and challenged the termination order also on the ground that no reason whatsoever has been given as to why his services have been terminated. The petitioner, there fore, prayed for quashing his termina tion order. The case was contested by the State and the State took the plea that respondent no. 1 remained absent from duty and thereafter his leave applica tion for 31.12.1984 to 20.1.1985 was sanctioned as leave without pay. The pay for remaining period was paid to him. The State has also contended that even the pay for July 1986 to October 1986 has been paid to respondent no. 1. It was further pleaded that T.A. bill submitted by respondent no. 1 was de fective and the same was sent to re spondent no. 1 for correction with the note that whenever the correction would be made by respondent no. 1 in the T.A. bill, the same shall be consid ered. As far as the adverse entry is con cerned, it was pleaded by the State that the same has been correctly awarded to respondent no. 1. Thereafter, re spondent no. 1/petitioner before the Tribunal filed rejoinder affidavit reiter ating the facts made by him in the claim petition.;