Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/243/2013 of Tika Singh Adhikari Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS on 28 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 243 OF 2013 Tika Singh Adhikari ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……Respondents. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of
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 NAINITALWRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 243 OF 2013
Tika Singh Adhikari
………..Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others.
……Respondents.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents.
Coram: Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)
The prayers in the writ petition were as follows:
“A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Joint Director of Education / District Education Officer (Pay Scale Rs.37400-67000, Grade Pay Rs. 8,700/-) from due date i.e. 3.4.2012, along with all consequential benefits.
B. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 to pay the monetary benefits admissible for the post of Joint Director of Education / District Education Officer and also for the post of Additional Director of Education, for the periods, petitioner has discharged duties of the said posts.
C. To issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
D. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Petitioner has died. An Application (CLMA No. 14345 of 2013) has been filed by the heirs of the petitioner for substitution. The question is, whether cause of action in the writ petition survives or not? A look at the prayers will make it amply clear that the same does not survive. The Substitution Application is, accordingly, rejected. An Amendment Application (CLMA No. 14346 of 2013) has been filed by the persons seeking to be substituted. In view of rejection of the Substitution Application, the Amendment Application made at the instance of the persons seeking substitution cannot be looked at. The Amendment Application is rejected. The tenor of the order, as above, would amply make it clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim put forward in the amended Application. The same is, therefore, res integra.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.12.2013
Rathour