GOVIND MOHAN SRIVASTAVA v. CANE COMMISSUIONER/PRESIDENT STATE CANE SERVICE AUTHORITY
WRIA/39547/1999 · 2025-07-10
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5189 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5189 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111591 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39547 of 1999 Petitioner :- Govind Mohan Srivastava Respondent :- Cane Commissuioner/President State Cane Service Authority Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Chaturvedi,Rajiv Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- P.M.N.Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Shri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the termination order dated 08.08.1997.
3. In similar circumstances, some other employees were also terminated. This court vide order dated 23.09.1999 passed an interim order whereby the impugned order was stayed.
4. Initially, this petition was tagged along with other writ petitions. However, due to its dismissal for non prosecution, it was de-tagged, later on writ petition was restored.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner by referring documents annexed along with rejoinder affidavit submits that other bunch of matter were decided where impugned termination
order therein were set aside and challenge to it at behest of the concerned respondent was also rejected. He further submits that petitioner has already worked on strength of the interim order and has attained age of superannuation. However, his retiral benefits are still not cleared.
6. None appears on behalf of the respondents.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the interim
order as well as that the petitioner has taken benefit of the said interim order, the Court also takes note of order passed by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench in the cases of similarly situated employees., therefore, the Court is of view that there is no reason to take any contrary or other view to the said judgments which are placed along with rejoinder affidavit.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and its legal consequence shall follow.
9. This order is passed in the absence of learned counsel for respondents, therefore, if there is any factual error, the respondents will be at liberty to file a review application within four weeks from today.
10. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.7.2025 A.N. Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad