Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/3372/2001 of JOGESHWAR PRASAD Vs B.H.E.L. and OTHERS on 26 November 2001
Writ Petition No. 3372 (S/S) of 2001 Jogeshwar Prasad Dhiman ………. Petitioner. Versus Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. & two others. …….. Respondents. _____________________ Hon’ble P.C. Verma,J. This writ petition has been filled by the petitioner with
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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 3372 (S/S) of 2001
Jogeshwar Prasad Dhiman……….Petitioner.
Versus
Bharat Heavy ElectricalLtd. & two others.…….. Respondents._____________________
Hon’ble P.C. Verma,J.
This writ petition has been filled by
the petitioner with the following prayer :- “I.Issue an writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the gratuity, fund and post retirement benefits to the petitioner.nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the gratuity, fund and post retirement benefits to the petitioner.
II.Issue an writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay full andregularsalaryfrom 24.7.1991 to 24.7.1992, bonus and planed performance emoluments with 18% interest.”the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay full andregularsalaryfrom 24.7.1991 to 24.7.1992, bonus and planed performance emoluments with 18% interest.”
So far as prayer No. I is concerned, the learned counselfortherespondentshasfiled counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the gratuity, fund and all other pensionery benefits has been paid to the petitioner what was due to the respondents upto the year 1991 as the petitioner has been superannuated on 24.7.1991.
So far as prayer No. II is concerned,
this prayer cannot be granted to the petitioner in the second writ petition in view of the fact that in respect of the same prayer writ petition No. 139 of 2001 (Old No. 22290 of 1991) has already been rejected by this Court and this is second writ in respect of the second prayer, which is barred by Rule-7 of Chapter-XXII of the High Court Rules. The second prayer is, accordingly, refused.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
26.11.2001Sd/-P.Singh