Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

G.N.TIWARI versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


G.N.Tiwari v. Executive Engineer - WRIT - A No. 20617 of 1994 [2006] RD-AH 7603 (12 April 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. 27

               Civil Misc. Writ Petition  No.  20617  of  1994

Gorakh Nath Tiwari ......................................................    Petitioner

Versus

Executive Engineer,

Electricity 400 KV Sub-Station Construction

Division ( U.P.S.E.B.) Kasara, Mau & another .............   Respondents

...........................

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard Sri Sandeep Agrawal holding brief of Sri Nimai Dass learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nishant Mehrotra holding brief of Sri Anil Mehrotra appearing for the respondents.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus  directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Store Keeper.   A prayer has also been sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Store Keeper with  back wages along with  interest.

Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that with effect from from 1.7.1991  he was engaged  at Sub-Station of respondent no. 1. Petitioner's case is that there was no appointment letter issued in his favour. However, an identity card  has been issued.  Certain letters have also been annexed along with the writ petition to prove that the petitioner was working at the Sub-Station.  A counter affidavit  has been filed by the respondents denying that the petitioner was at any point of time engaged in any capacity as Assistant Store Keeper at any Sub-Station.  It has been stated that the petitioner was never appointed nor  he has any claim for regularisation.  In the counter affidavit  it

has been stated that for maintaining the security of the Sub-Station there was an agreement with M/s. Smart Bhutpurva Sainik Security Service, Varanasi who has made available the services  of eighteen security guards which also included the name of the petitioner.  Reliance has been placed on a charge handing memo by the Executive Engineer  dated 11.5.1994 which has been filed as Annexure C.A.4  which refers the petitioner's name.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has himself referred the case of one Subedar Yadav who was similarly engaged  by the respondents  and  has filed a writ petition before this Court. Learned Single Judge  vide his judgment dated 13.7.1994 disposed of the writ petition  observing that for the claim regularisation, the remedy of the petitioner was under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if services of petitioner has not  been terminated, his services shall not be terminated without going through legal procedure for termination of temporary/ ad hoc employee and in his place no ad hoc  employee be substituted.   Against the said judgement dated 13.7.1994 an Special Appeal No.  86 of 1994 was filed which Special appeal was disposed of vide judgment dated 6.12.1994 setting aside the judgement of the learned Single Judge  with the observation that there being efficacious and alternative remedy available to the appellant  under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the appellant was relegated to the said remedy.  

This writ petition filed in the year 1994 was disposed of on 7.7.1994 which order was subsequently recalled vide order dated 24.3.2004 and  thereafter a counter affidavit  was called and has been filed by the respondents. The very appointment of the petitioner having been disputed by the respondents, for which  several documents including the payment register of the employees working in the Division has been brought on record;  for deciding the claim of the petitioner adjudication of the facts are required after taking evidence which cannot be done in this writ proceeding. For the relief claimed in this writ petition as was observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Subedar Yadav dated 6.12.1994, as noted above, it is open to the petitioner to seek his remedy under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In view of the fact that the writ petition of the petitioner was pending in this Court for a long period, in the event the petitioner seeks remedy under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,  the same may be expeditiously considered and disposed of.  

With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed.

D/-12.4.2006

SCS  


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.