Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GOPAL SINGH versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gopal Singh v. Director Of Education - WRIT - A No. 25129 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 11022 (3 July 2007)

 

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 No38.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.    25129    of   1988.

Gopal Singh ...........Petitioner

Versus

Director of Education (Higher).

Allahabad and others ...........Respondents

With

Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.    4504    of   1991.

Gopal Singh ...........Petitioner

Versus

Director of Education (Higher).

Allahabad and others ...........Respondents

:::::::::::

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard Mr. R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

Both these writ petitions filed by the same petitioner have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgement.

By the first writ petition (Writ Petition No.25129 of 1988), the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner from the postofPeon in Balwant Vidyapeeth Rural Institute, Bichpuri, Agra. Further a writ of mandamus has been soughtcommanding the respondents to regularise the petitioner on the sanctioned post of Peon in Balwant Vidyapeeth Rural Institute, Bichpuri, Agra. Bythe second writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17th January, 1991 passed by the Principal, Balwant Vidyapeeth Rural Institute, Bichpuri, Agra terminating the services of the petitioner as not required.

Brief facts necessary for deciding both the writ petitions are; the petitioner was engaged as Peon in Balwant Vidyapeeth Rural Institute, Bichpuri, Agra by the Principal of the College since 2nd February, 1964. Petitioner's case further is that a recommendation was sent by the Principal for including the name of the in the salary payment. The institution in question came on payment of salary with effect from 1st March, 1981. After the institution having been taken in the payment of salary by grant-in-aid, the petitioner's name was not included in the grant-in-aid nor he was paid salary. Although recommendation was sent by the Principal for including the petitioner's name in grant-in-aid but the petitioner's name could not be included and by order of the Principal issued on 17th January, 1991 petitioner's services were terminated. The petitioner filed the second writ petition challenging the said order in which an interim order was passed staying the order dated 17th January, 1991.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the institution in Writ Petition No.4504 of 1991 in which the case of the Management is that petitioner was appointed in the institution on 2nd February, 1964 and thereafter he was transferred in Campus Department and Cycle Stand and his emoluments were paid from the resources of the Committee. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that when the institution came into grant-in-aid, the petitioner's name was not included in the salary disbursement scheme. The peons working in the Hostel and Cycle Stand were not entitled for salary by the Government. However, taking sympathetic view by a subsequent order dated 1st April, 1991 the petitioner was absorbed on the post of Mali by the order of Director of Education copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit sworn by B.B. Barik, Principal of the institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order dated 1st April, 1992 the petitioner is continuing in the institution and getting his salary from the state fund.

Sri R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the termination order, contended that petitioner was an employee of the institution and his services could not have been terminated. He further contended that several persons who were subsequently appointed were retained whereas the services of the petitioner were terminated.

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

From the materials brought on the record, it is clear that the petitioner was engaged by the institution and was paid his emoluments from the institution's fund, when the institution was taken in grant-in-aid, the petitioner's name was not included in the grant-in-aid. The petitioner filed the first writ petition praying that his services be not terminated. The petitioner's name having not been included in the list of employees whose salary was to be paid by the State, the petitioner was not entitled for any salary from the State. The petitioner being an employee of institution engaged for duties in the institution in different capacity, lastly for looking a Cycle Stand, his services were terminated as not required. No error can be pointed out in the order of the Management terminating the services of the petitioner as not required nor the said order can be said to be passed in violation of any statutory rules or in breach of any provision of law. The petitioner, thus, is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in both the writ petitions. However, in view of the fact that petitioner has already been absorbed by the Director of Education vide order dated 1st April, 1992, the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits in pursuance of his appointment order dated 1st April, 1992 with effect from 1.3.1992

With the above observation, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

Dated: 3.7.21007.

Rakesh


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.