High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rk Srivastava v. Uppst - WRIT - A No. - 36816 of 1994  RD-AH 17163 (30 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36816 of 1994
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava.......... Petitioner
The U.P. Service Tribunal, Lucknow and others.....Respondents
Hon. R.K. Agrawal, J.
Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 5.2.1993 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow whereby the Claim Petition No. 226/II/1990 preferred by the petitioner, has been dismissed both on merits and on limitation.
We have heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the averments made in the Writ Petition as also the order of the Tribunal.
Shri Asthana submitted that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis after facing due selection process, and further, his services have been terminated on 18.1.1986 with effect from 31.7.1985 giving retrospective effect. He further submitted that similarly situated persons have been granted relief by the Tribunal and, therefore, there was no reason as to why the petitioner ought to have not been given similar treatment.
On the question of limitation he submits that the question loses its efficacy in the event relief is granted on the basis of parity.
The submissions are wholly misconceived.
From the order of the Tribunal we find that the petitioner has failed to establish that he was selected and appointed on ad-hoc basis after facing selection process. Further, he was appointed on 11/12.7.1984 and his services were terminated vide order dated 31.7.1985. However, on 1.8.1985 he was permitted to continue on account of public interest so that the work of the dispensary may not suffer. He was finally asked vide order dated 18.1.1986 not to come any further.
It is well settled that an ad-hoc employee has no right or lien on the post. The services of the petitioner have been terminated in accordance with the Rules applicable in his case.
The order dated 18.1.1986 cannot be treated to be as an order of termination terminating the services of the petitioner retrospectively with effect from 31.7.1985 inasmuch as his services stood terminated on 31.7.1985, and he was not reappointed thereafter. He was only asked to come in the public interest which did not confer any right.
So far as the plea of parity in respect of similarly situated employees is concerned, we find that no such plea was raised before the Tribunal, and it is being raised for the first time in the present Writ Petition, which requires investigation of facts and cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal dated 5.2.1993 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The Writ Petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.