Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBHASH PATEL versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Subhash Patel v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 56990 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 12763 (24 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 No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  56990 of 2006

Subhash Patel                Versus                 State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

Heard Sri R.S.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents no. 4,5 and 6.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially engaged by the Nagar Panchayat on 30.12.1988 on daily wage basis and has since then been working and is being paid his wages. He claims that in terms of  "The Uttar Pradesh Regularization Of Daily Wage Appointments On Group-D Posts Rules, 2001"  (hereinafter referred to as the Regularization Rules of 2001)  he would be entitled to be regularized in service and be paid his regularly salary. In paragraph 26 of the writ petition such specific averments have been made regarding the petitioner being entitled to the benefits of the aforesaid Regularization Rules of 2001, to which there is only a general denial but the respondents have not categorically stated that the Regularization Rules of 2001 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner.

In my view the case of the petitioner should be considered by the respondent-Nagar Panchayat for regularization under the Regularization Rules of 2001. The petitioner also claims the benefit of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1 wherein in paragraph 53 it has been observed that ".........the union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed."

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the Respondent no.6 Chairman/Administrator, Nagar Panchayat Barhalganj District Gorakhpur shall consider the case of the petitioner for being regularized in service, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, by a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order with the said respondent.

No order as to cost.

dt. 24.7.2007

dps


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.