- (1.) BY Court. -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) LEARNED single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner on the, ground of availability of alternate remedy hence, this L.P.A. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the Office Order dated 31.1.2007 by which the earlier order passed for posting of the appellant was ordered to be kept in abeyance. It appears that petitioner/appellant thereafter reported on duty but there was some dispute with respect to designation and he was not permitted to mark attendance and, therefore, in writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2127 of 2007 when order dated 31.1.2007 was placed on record, time was sought by the respondents to verify the order dated 31.1.2007, then the question of wrong designation was resolved by order dated 5.2.2008. It appears that after order dated 5.2.2008 the dispute was settled and the learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2127 of 2007 in order dated 5.2.2008 observed that since the respondents have now issued the order allowing the petitioner to mark attendance, the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is redressed. It appears that thereafter one Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 249 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed after recording the stand of the respondents that dues have been paid to petitioner, however, when the counsel for the petitioner pleaded "no instruction". Thereafter, the petitioner's grievance was not found redressed and petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition W.P. (S) No. 6223 of 2008. That writ petition was treated as representation to the respondents by the order of the Court dated 25th August, 2009. The petitioner's representation was considered and rejected by order dated 11.1.2010. In the order dated 11.1.2010 it has been held that the petitioner did not attend the job from 2.2.2007 to 13.8.2008 and, therefore, his claim is not admissible. Aggrieved against the said order dated 11.1.2010, petitioner preferred writ petition W.P. (S) No. 1994 of 2010 which has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.
(3.) WE considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case and the orders referred above. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's posting was kept in abeyance vide order dated 31.1.2007 and petitioner reported on duty and thereafter some dispute continued relating to his designation shown in the order but that issue was resolved vide order dated 5.2.2008 and it appears that petitioner was not allowed to put his attendance, obviously on attendance register, because of some dispute about designation and, therefore, vide order dated 5.2.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No.2127 of 2007, this Court observed that respondents have now issued an order allowing the petitioner to mark attendance and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. So far as issue relating to non -marking of the attendance by the petitioner, which was subject matter of dispute in W.P. (S) No. 2127 of 2007, has been resolved and appropriate order permitting the petitioner to mark attendance was passed and, therefore, it appears that petitioner's attendance may not have been marked but on this count the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits for which he is entitled to for the period from 2.2.2007 to 13.8.2008.;