ir[""""[iyi!-i!!i!:B'"A',i* o' fs Js'ii'S'? '-•;""1l *-iy"'- •-^•'•••^. ^t? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) l»l!SJ .^ .?yn!* .&'• fr.^ ^:jl^a^ ,1^ Kl^-t'L. B§sat11 ,A. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS y..^ "M«>\t¥' ^<v^ ^ ^^ ^ ^y^ i^-^y ^'.^ i^- ,^< "Ay^. C-T/. ^~-< tO ;•? 2. WRIT PETITION N0. SBD2-/2Q04 Laxmi Narayan Vaishya S/o Madhav Prasad aged about 41 years Occupation- Lower Division Clerck, at Bhahwar Singh Porte Govt. Colleage Pendra District Bilaspur R/o- State Bank Road Pendra District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. TheState of Chhattisgarh ^ Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Joint Director Department of Higher Educafion, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Prindpal Govt. Girls Collage Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) The Principal Bhanwar Singh Porte Govt. Collage Pendra District- Bilaspur (C.G.) The Commissioner Department of Higher Education, Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) The Joint Director Department of Higher Education, Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) 3. 5. 6. 7. m -7 8. The State of Madhay Pradesh Through the Secretary Department of Higher Education, Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLES 226/2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^,'\ ^sr 'qr^MT, ^ftwre, 03.2.2005 Shri-F.S. Khare, learned c^nsel for the petitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Soyt. Ad^ocate appears for the State/ respondent no.l on advounce copy. Heard on I.A.No.7850/2004. Application for urgent heafing is allowed. Heard on admission. The petitioner hcxs filed ^his petition for quashing the Memo dt. 22.8.1997 (Annexure P-13) and jilso the notice of removal from service (Annexure P-14), ckxted 08.9.1997. After a bare perusat of Annexure P-14, it tron^iires that one month notice calculating from 0^.9.1997 w<xs given to the petitioner for termination of his services. Le^med counsel for the petitioner submits that against the said notice, an Original Application No.2770/1997 was filed before the M.P.State Admi^istratiye Tribunal at Jabatpur cnd in the said O.A., on order dated 24.9.1^97 was passed by which the triburial has directed to mointain status quo c^s it existed on the date of passing of the order dated 24.9.1997. This ititerim order was further continued by orders dated 09.10.1997 & 19.11.11997. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 09.12.1997, 13.1.1998 on<| 13.2.2002. Ths order sheets of the ,0i. PRJ—FS/350—12/2000^50,000. /-<-: 'S^I ^Mivi^, 'S^tWTS, Mrtl'H^ p-p- -s^' -2.- ^FifepN !TO?if •qfeA •(fSresTC iraifim tribunai have been filed as Anrjexure P-18. Learned counsel for the petition6r submits that even afte|' passing of an absolute order of stay in favour of the petitioner, the Pri^cipal of the institution has issued memo dated 25.9.2004 (Annexure P-19) asking Ihe petitioner to furnish further information by 30 Sept. 2004 ^bout •the subsistence of the stoy order grcmted in favour of the petitione^. Learned counsel furtiisr submits that a reply to this notice hasbeen gi^en vide Annexure P-20 dated 30.9.2004. Learned counset further submits! that the matter is at Tribunal imd no development has taken place in t|ie tribunat after 13.2.2002 ond now the tribunal has been abolished, as }an effect of which the order of stay granted in favour of the petition^ is stiil in force. It is very unforhinate th^it this short information has not been clearly mentioned in Annexure P-p0, a reply submitted by the petitioner to -Hie Principal of the Institutron^ In the facts and circums^ances of the case, when the matf'er is already su6-/y(//<se vide O.A.No. 2^70/1997, it would not be proper to take further action for quashment petitioner may apprise the depa af the order of removal again. The "tment about tiie pendency of his case vide O.A.No. 2770/1997. The de|)artment is also obliged to inquire about the pendency of the said origina| application and also about the order of 'S^ 'snqRfq, "g^THS', fayiyy ^^^y-l^- 58-»^- -s ?'1t111;1 '^!1*KB11 ^ f&^&i ^.i'^l'^i ii'afRpTsn^i status quo. whether the same is i^i force or not. If the aforesaid order is still in force, due respect shalt b^ g'wen to the same. Since a subsequent petition on the same cause of act on is barred by doctrin®of res judicata, this court is not inclined to issue ^iotice to the other side. The petition is disposed of |with the aforesaid observations. Consequently, M.W.P.No.4^14/2004 & I.A.No.7850/04 a!so stand disposed of. C.C. as per rules. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge