High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Kumar Tiwari v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1302 of 2007  RD-AH 16176 (1 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD.
Special Appeal No. 1302 of 2007.
1. Ram Kumar Tiwari, son of Sri Shyam Narain Tiwari
Tube Well Construction Division, Nalkoop Colony,
Baghada, Prayag, Allahabad. .......Appellant.
1. State of U.P., through Secretary, Irrigation,
Government of U.P., Lucknow.
2. Engineer-in-Chief, Mechanical Irrigation
Department, U.P. Lucknow.
3. Superintending Engineer, Tube Well circle,
4. Executive Engineer, Tube Well Construction
Division, Nalkoop Colony, Baghada, Prayag,
Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. H.C. Dwivedi
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Y.K. Srivastava
Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Date : October 1, 2007
Oral Judgement (Per : H.L. Gokhale, CJ)
1. Heard Mr.Harish Chandra Dwivedi in support of this appeal and Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appears for respondents.
2. The appellant herein was appointed as work charged helper in the Tube Well Construction Division of Irrigation Department. By virtue of promotion of some candidates to the post of Lower Division clerk, the petitioner while working as a work charged helper was deployed to work in the superior scale with the condition that such deployment was temporary on adhoc basis and only for three months and even before prior permission the petitioner's deployment could be terminated without giving any notice. By the order dated 31st March, 1992 petitioner's temporary adhoc deployment to the superior post for limited period was withdrawn. He filed writ petition no. 20904 of 1992 before this court, which was dismissed by order dated 11th August, 2003.
3. The appellant herein was reverted as a consequence of order dated 11th August, 2003 passed by this Court in earlier writ petition. He did not challenge that order in writ petition out of which the present special appeal arises. According to the appellant, he was already regularised. If that was so, he should have at least sought clarification from the Court, which passed the order dated 11th August, 2003. He neither challenge the order dated 11th August, 2003 passed in earlier writ petition, nor sought for any clarification from that Court.
5. We have gone through the order passed by learned single Judge, which is a consequential order. We do not see any error in the order passed by learned single Judge. Learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
6. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Date : 01.10.2007.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.