SHANKER PRASAD versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Shanker Prasad v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1414 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16912 (25 October 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. 1414 of 2007

Shanker son of Budhsen, resident of village Danapur,

Post-Dibai, District Bulandshahar

............... Appellant

Vs.

1. State of U.P., through its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow.

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

3. Divisional Forest Officer, Divisional Director, Social Forestry, Bulandshahar.

4. The Conservator of Forest, Meerut Circle, Meerut.

5. The Chief Conservator of Forest Social Forestry Western Zone, Bareilly.

-------- Respondents

Present : Smt. Sarita Shukla, for the Appellant,

Standing Counsel, for the State-Respondents.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

Date: 25.10.2007

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

1. Heard Ms. Sarita Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing counsel for the State.

2. The appellant is working in Forest Department as class IV employee on daily wages. He filed a petition seeking his regularization and appropriate pay. The matter was given consideration into depth by the learned Single Judge who has looked into the law including the recent judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006 )4 SCC-1 and has noted that the appellant was unable to show on which post he was working and further that he could not point that he was shouldering the same responsibility which was being shouldered by a regular and a permanent employee.

3. In the circumstances the prayer for regularization and payment of regular salary was not accepted and the petition was dismissed.

4. We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning of the learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.

SKS

25.10.2007

(Chief Justice )

(Pankaj Mithal,J)

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 |

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