Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Man Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. - 10147 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 17131 (30 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

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10147 of 1999

Man Singh

Versus

State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has filed present writ petition requesting therein that writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner as available to other Class IV employee in the department in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 with all emoluments and benefit since the date of his appointment.

Petitioner has contended that he was registered with the Employment Exchange. Petitioner was appointed vide appointment letter dated 16.11.1990 as Kahar (Class III employee) under the control of Adhsikshak, Rajkiya Anusoochit Jati Chatrawas, Etawah on fixed monthly honorarium on temporary basis. Categorical mention was made in the appointment letter that appointment was purely temporary and same could be dispensed with at any point of time without any information or notice. Petitioner claims that he has been performing and discharging his duty in the same way and manner as regularly selected Class IV employee has been performing and discharging his duty, as such regular pay scale as admissible to regular Class IV employee of Rs. 750-950 is also liable to be paid as per principle of equal pay for equal work. Principle of equal pay for equal work has been explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in the constitution Bench judgement in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi 2006 SC 1. wherein it has been categorically mentioned that once incumbent has accepted appointment with open eyes then incumbent cannot claim any other and same would be governed by term and condition of appointment. Regular and temporary incumbent constitute separate Class. As such said claim of regular pay scale cannot be accorded. As far as State of U.P. is concerned there are statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, namely under U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group "D" Post, Rules, 2001, wherein daily wager can claim his right for extending the benefit of regularization. Petitioner has contended that prior to 29.6.1991, petitioner has been performing and discharging his duty and as such he is liable to be extended the benefit of regularisation. For this aspect of the matter liberty is given to the petitioner to make representation alongwith certified copy of this order before the Director, Samaj Kalyan Vibag, U.P. Lucknow, who shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law by means of reasoned speaking order, preferably within period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.

Dt. 30.10.2007

T.S.


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.