Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1677/2006 of GIRDHAR JOSHI Vs INDIAN NEDICINES PHARMACEUTICAL LTD AND OTHERS on 30 December 2010
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1677 of 2006 Girdhar Joshi …….Petitioner. Versus Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Ltd. and Others …Respondents. Sri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate present for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate present for the
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 ATNAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1677 of 2006
Girdhar Joshi
…….Petitioner.
Versus
Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Ltd. and Others …Respondents.
Sri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate present for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate present for the respondents, Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral)
Heard Sri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner claims to be a Medical Officer posted at Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Ltd., a Govt. of India undertaking and presently posted at District Almora. By means of the writ petition, the petitioner claims that initially he was appointed on 10.11.1986 as Dispensary in-charge and subsequently he was promoted/re-designated as Deputy Production Manager and was also directed to do the work of Medical Officer. The qualifications of the petitioner are B.A.M.S. which is Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery and he got registration no. 27665/1978. The short contention of the petitioner is that ever since he was promoted i.e. on 6.11.1988, he was liable to be given Non Practice Allowance (for short, N.P.A.). The petitioner has relied upon letter dated 6.11.1998 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) which says that “N.P.A. (Non Practice Allowance will be admissible as per rules”. In short, the petitioner was liable to be given N.P.A., if the rules so permit. All the same, the petitioner has not been able to show before this Court as to what rules are applicable in this case and whether those rules prescribe that the petitioner is liable to be given N.P.A. on the post on which he is presently discharging his duties.
In the counter affidavit, which is filed on behalf of the respondents, it has not been categorically denied that the petitioner is not entitled for N.P.A. Vague and evasive reply has been given in counter affidavit. It has also been suggested though that whether the petitioner is entitled for N.P.A., clarification has been sought from other authorities. Therefore, though the petitioner has not been able to fully make any claim in favour of his case regarding grant of N.P.A., as no rules have been shown before this Court, yet no specific position regarding the claim of N.P.A. has been taken by the respondents. On these set of facts, in the interest of justice, the Managing Director of the Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Ltd. (A Govt. of India Undertaking), Mohhan, via Ramnagar, District Almora is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner which shall be filed before him within a period of three weeks from today, (along with a certified copy of writ petition, counter affidavit and other documents). The representation shall be disposed of in a speaking order within eight weeks from the date of filing of representation.
With these observations, writ petition is disposed of finally.
No order as to costs.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)