In Order To Make Out A Case To Grant The Relief Sought, A Writ Petition Has To Be Drafted Very Carefully: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that a writ petition has to be drafted very carefully in order to make out a case for grant of relief.
The petitioners were teachers who were part of schools run by the Basic Education Board.
The petitioners had filed writ petitions to direct concerned District Basic Education Officers to release and pay the petitioners their respective amount of gratuity along with interest. The Court remarked that the petitioners had not raised any demand of gratuity for many years.
The Court stated that “substantial arguments raised before this Court by petitioners are not substantially supported by pleadings of writ petitions…Not disclosing the said Government Orders is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Court.”
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed, “Pleadings are essential part of any litigation. The relief sought should be supported by pleadings. The present bunch of writ petitions are example of it where the prayers sought are not only vague but not supported by material pleadings also. Even the petitioners have approached this Court by not disclosing entire relevant facts which goes adverse to their case, i.e., petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands.”
Advocate Shoar Mohammad Khan represented the petitioners, while C.S.C. Vijai Kumar Srivastava appeared for the respondents.
The Court observed that the petitioners had claimed the relief primarily on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act, 1972) would apply to Teachers of Basic Schools and “the writ petitions are also silent about huge delay in claiming relief.”
The Court remarked that it was up to the State to carry on the procedure or to frame specific Act/ Rules for payment of gratuity for Teachers in Basic Schools.
The Court rejected the argument of repugnancy and noted, “In aforesaid circumstances, presently gratuity is paid to Teachers in terms of referred Government Orders in certain circumstances. The details of Government Orders are not part of writ petitions. Petitioners have not pleaded about its applicability. Government Orders are also not under challenge, except oral argument on ‘repugnancy’.”
The Court noted that the relief sought in writ petitions was not supported by pleadings and held that the petitioners were not entitled to gratuity only on the basis of the Payment of Gratuity Act as it was governed by referred Government Orders permitted by legal provisions.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions.
Cause Title: Smt Usha Verma & Anr. v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (2024:AHC:19811)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Shoar Mohammad Khan, Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Durga Shanker Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Saroj Kumar Ram, Navin Kumar Sharma, Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, Akhilesh Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Ved Prakash, and Tawvab Ahmed Khan
Respondents: C.S.C. Vijai Kumar Srivastava, Archana Singh, Arun Kumar, Kushmondeya Shahi, Arun Kumar, Bipin Bihari Pandey, Suresh Kumar Maurya, Chandra Shekhar Singh, Udit Chandra, Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, and Satish Chandra Yadav
