numberdoubt that order of companypulsory retirement of the respondent was challenged by him in a writ petition w.p.
56 issued an order dated january 6 1990 companypulsorily retiring the respondent from the government service with effect from 6.1.1990 and giving him the benefit of three months wages at the last drawn rates.
government lucknumber seeking from the government settlement of his outstanding claims by march 31 1990 and grant of permission to him to retire from service voluntarily from that date.
56 and directed the p. government to treat the respondent as having retired voluntarily from march 31 1990 and to pay his salary for the period elapsed between the date of his companypulsory retirement and the date from which he wished to voluntary retire.
it was stated in that numberice that the respondents outstanding claims remaining unsettled by the government before march 31 1990 shall be settled before june 30 1990 and he shall then be allowed to retire voluntarily.
however after looking into the record we are of the opinion that it is number a fit case in which the petitioner should be allowed to bye pass the alternative remedy available to him before the u.p.
but the government did number grant permission to the respondent to voluntarily retire from its service with effect from march 31 1990 as had been sought by him.
and its chief engineer in the present appeal by the special leave.
instead the governumber of u.p.
curiously the respondent resorted to the companyrse of filing a second writ petition before the same high companyrt challenging over again the very order of the u.p.
government by which he had been companypulsorily retired and sought reliefs thereto.
however changing his stance the respondent wrote a letter dated december 20 1989 to the self same secretary seeking grant of the governments permission to retire voluntarily from march 31 1990 even if his outstanding claims with it were number settled by that date.
that second writ petition registered as w.p.
it is the sustainability of this order of the learned single judge made in the second writ petition of the respondent which is challenged by the state of u.p.
goel the learned companynsel for the appellants assailed the order under appeal on diverse grounds.
number 1980 of 1990 filed before the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad.
the respondent did number also choose to approach the u.p.
from the judgment and order dated 19.2.92 of the allahabad high companyrt in w.p.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 498 of 1993.
by his order dated february 19 1992 the learned single judge companystituting that single judge bench allowed the writ petition quashed the impugned order by which the respondent the writ petitioner had been companypulsorily retired under f.r.
interim order if any to vacate.
56 of the financial hand book volume ii part ii iv as amended upto date to be referred to as f.r.
but a division bench of that companyrt refused to entertain that writ petition and dismissed it by its order dated march 29 1990 which read learned companynsel for the state has produced the record and has also filed companynter affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
k goel for the appellants.
public services tribunal.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkatachala j. leave granted.
labh chand in person for the respondent.
number 7498 of 1990 it appears did number come up for hearing before a division bench of the high court as had happened with the earlier dismissed writ petition.
purporting to exercise his powers under f.r.
number 7498 of 1990 filed by the respondent before the said high companyrt challenging over again the very order of the state government by which he was companypulsorily retired came up for hearing before a learned single judge that learned single judge numberwithstanding the dismissal by a division bench of the same high companyrt of his similar writ petition filed earlier on the ground of number exhaustion of alternate statutory remedy the appellants who were respondents in the second writ petition as was rightly expected of them raised a preliminary objection as to its maintainability relying on the dismissal order of the said earlier writ petition by a division bench of the same companyrt.
on account of this alternative remedy being available to the petitioner this petition is dismissed in limine.
the validity of the said order of dismissal of the writ petition made by the division bench of the high companyrt was number questioned by the respondent in any appeal or any other legal proceeding.
number 7498/90.
government as an executive engineer minumber irrigation banda served a numberice dated december 19 1989 on the secretary area development 2 u.p.
public services tribunal to seek reliefs respecting the order of his companypulsory retirement although the division bench of the high companyrt had dismissed his writ petition for number availing of the alternative remedy before that tribunal.
respondent who was in the service of the u.p.
