Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAKASH NARAYAN SIROTHIYA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prakash Narayan Sirothiya v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 738 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14709 (30 August 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 AT ALLAHABAD

CJ's Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Appeal No.738 of 2007

1.Prakash Narain Sirothya, Son of Shri Laxman Das Sirothya R/o Mohalla Pathakpura, Mauranipur, District Jhansi.

Vs.

1.State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Forest, Anubhag-3, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

2.Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, 17 Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow.

3.Divisional Forest Officer, Jhansi

Counsel for the appellant: Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Adv.

Counsel for the respondents: Standing Counsel.

Coram: Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Date:30th of August, 2007.

Oral Judgement (Per: H.L. Gokhale, CJ.)

1. Heard Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge on a recall application, which the appellant had moved before the learned Single Judge, to seek recall of the judgment, which the learned Single Judge had rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31684 of 2000.

3. The appellant worked as a Watcher on daily wages in the Forest Department. He had number of proceedings earlier in this Court and in various forums. The learned Single Judge, who had heard his writ petition, went into the question as to whether he was entitled for regularisation of his services, as he had claimed. The contention of the appellant is that he has rendered his services regularly and the termination of his services is mala fide. The learned Single Judge went into the records and found that there were no averments to justify the submission, which were being canvassed. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that since on the cut off date in the Regularisation Rules of 2001, the petitioner was not in daily wages employment, his case did not call for regularisation and, therefore, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, which the appellant had filed.

4. The appellant filed a special appeal against this order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and that special appeal was heard and decided by a Division Bench of this Court. While disposing of that special appeal, bearing Special Appeal No.538 of 2006 on 23.5.2006, the Division Bench observed that dismissal of the appeal will not prevent the appellant from obtaining regularisation, if he so can by proving that he was working on the specified cut off date and by proving the same before the authority in question. The appellant took the necessary steps and approached the authority as directed by the Division Bench, but could not succeed. Thereafter he had moved a recall application on the basis of some information, which he had received and also prayed for perjury against the officers of the Forest Department. That application has been rejected by the learned Single Judge and it is because of this order, the present appeal has been filed.

5. In our view, the learned Single Judge was right in declining to recall the order. The order which was passed earlier, has been confirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal filed by the appellant. Thereafter whatever happened to the case is an independent proceeding and certainly cannot be a cause for recall application. That apart, the order, which has been passed on recall application is otherwise not appeallable under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court.

6. For these reasons, the present appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Dt/-30.8.2007

RKK/- (Chief Justice)

(Anjani Kumar, J.)


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.