High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Munna Singh v. Executive Engineer - WRIT - A No. 20618 of 1994  RD-AH 7623 (12 April 2006)
Court No. 27
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20618 of 1994
Munna Singh ............................................................ Petitioner
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 Driver. A prayer has also been sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Driver with back wages along with interest.
Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that with effect from from 27.2.1992 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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.