Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JHAMMAN SINGH versus NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jhamman Singh v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad And Others - WRIT - A No. 11087 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4172 (22 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11087 of 2006

JhammanSingh                                               Petitioner

                                             Vs.

Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and others             Respondents

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

               

           

               Sri Prem Chandra, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of

Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the standing counsel has accepted

Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4.

                Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

                      The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 13.2.2006 passed by Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad.

                      Sri Y.K. Sinha, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on election duty on the date when he is said to have refused to accept the order for attending the duty in counting of the votes i.e. on 25.10.2005 and that the impugned order of suspension of  the petitioner is without jurisdiction.

      Sri Prem Chandra, counsel appearing for the respondents submits that FIR was lodged against the petitioner by the A.D.M and the duty of the petitioner for election was assigned by the District Magistrate. He further submits that Rule 42 of the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralized) Services Rules, 1966 empowers the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat or Nigam to suspend an employee in view of the Government Order dated 6th January, 1997.

       Sri Y.K. Sinha, counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal  submits that Rule 37(3) has been amended by Notification dated 26th September, 2003 known as Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralized) Services (Twenty-Second Amendment) Rules, 2004. Under Rule 37 member of the Centralized service can be suspended by the Director of Local Bodies Uttar Pradesh, hence, the Chairman/Nagar Ayukt of the Nagar Panchayat or Nigam has no power to suspend the petitioner. It is only on emergency that power under Rules 37 and 42 can be exercised.  The matter requires scrutiny by this Court.

        The counsel for the respondents  pray for and are granted two weeks' time and no more to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within 2 weeks thereafter.

         List on 21.3.2006.

          The operation of the impugned suspension order dated 13.2.2006 shall remain stayed till next date of listing.

Dated 22.2.2006

CPP/-

 

             

                       


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.