Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rajendra Prasad v. U.P. State Regional Road Transport Corporation And Others - WRIT - A No. 30485 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11721 (11 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).


Court no. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30485 of 2007

Rajendra Prasad


U.P. State Regional Road Transport

Corporation & others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner appeared in the examination of Conductor and merit list was prepared in the year 1989. Petitioner submits that in the said merit list which was prepared Jai Prakash Pathak was at serial no. 141 which was below the merit of petitioner. Jai Prakash Pathak was regularized on 09.03.1990 while he was posted at Jhansi. Petitioner was transferred as daily wage employee on 15.09.1992 to Tunakpur Region. Petitioner was regularized on 24.02.1994. One Yashpal had raised industrial dispute and said dispute was decided on 24.02.1999 wherein declaration was made by the Labour Court the he was entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 09.03.1990. Order of Labour Tribunal was challenged by the Department before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39571 of 1999 and same was upheld by this Court vide order dated 12.09.1999. Petitioner submits that State of U.P. in question was reorganized and he has been transferred back to Jhansi. Now as Jai Prakash Pathak who was junior to the petitioner has been extended the benefit of regularization at the earlier point of time as such said benefit is liable to be extended to him also and further similar treatment as has been extended to Yashpal is also liable to be extended.

In the present case undisputed position is that Jai Prakash Pathak was regularized on 19.03.1990 when he functioning as daily wager at Jhansi. Petitioner was transferred on 15.09.1992 to Tanakpur region had been regularisation w.e.f. 24.02.1994. It appears after Yashpal has succeeded then as an after thought petitioner is also claiming said benefit. In the present case once date of regularisation has held the field for sufficiently long period then it would be inappropriate to give direction for changing the date of regularisation keeping in view the order passed in favour of Yashpal. Writ petition is grossly barred by latches as petitioner acquiesced to the order dated 24.02.1994 and has not challenged the same within reasonable period.

Consequently, in this background of the case writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches.




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


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 |

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