Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/947/2004 of RAMENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTVA Vs STATE and ORS on 30 December 2010
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL MCC (Review Application) No. 1086 of 2010 IN Writ Petition (S/S) No. 947 of 2004 Ramendra Kumar Srivastava ………….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Gopal Narain,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MCC (Review Application) No. 1086 of 2010 IN Writ Petition (S/S) No. 947 of 2004
Ramendra Kumar Srivastava ………….. Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for non-applicant/ respondent No.1.
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for non-applicant/ respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief JusticeHon’ble V. K. Bist, Judge Date of Decision : 30.12.2010
Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral)
In the writ petition, relieving order dated 29[th] August 2003 was assailed. When the writ petition was decided on 16[th]December 2010, nothing could be brought on record to suggest that the petitioner has been allocated finally to the State of Uttarakhand. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed holding that the State of Uttarakhand cannot retain an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Soon after the order was passed, on 28[th] December 2010 the present review application was filed contending that the petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The reason furnished in the application for non-supply of the said information to this Court on or before 16[th] December 2010 is alleged bypass surgery of the petitioner. It has not been stated in the review application, when the surgery took place and why the information pertaining to final allocation of the petitioner to the State of Uttarakhand, could not be brought to the notice of the Court before 16[th] December 2010. Be that as it may, the same being not a ground for review, we reject the review application. However, we make it clear that since the earlier writ petition did not take notice of the final allocation of the petitioner to the State of Uttarakhand, it shall be open to the petitioner to take such recourse to law, as he may be advised, founded on his said final allocation to the State of Uttarakhand.
( V.K. Bist, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.12.2010
P. Singh