Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIV PUJAN MISRA versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shiv Pujan Misra v. Deputy Inspector General And Others - WRIT - A No. - 16727 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 17368 (2 November 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. 16727 of 1999

Shiv Pujan Misra

Versus

Deputy Inspector General, Varanasi

Region, and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner had been performing and discharging his duty as "Follower" in U.P. Police, Jaunpur w.e.f. 17.1.1984 and was being paid remuneration of Rs. 100/- per month. Petitioner claims that he had been posted at various places and all point of time, he has performed and discharged his duty. Petitioner has mentioned that he was suffering from mental disease. Petitioner has further contended that his father informed the authority concerned in this regard. Petitioner leave the police station on 18.7.1995 and he did not return back. Petitioner has contended that thereafter he appeared with medical certificate in order to resume his duty and then nothing was being done, thereafter petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1627 of 1999 and then petitioner has contended that his services has been dispensed with, copy of the termination order has been filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit.

Pleadings in the present case have been exchanged.

Sri Shyam Narain, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case order, which has been passed is purely stigmatic in nature as on account of his absence from duty, in what way and manner his services has been dispensed with, as such said order of termination is bad in the eyes of law. In this background he has placed reliance on judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28190 of 1999 Daya Ram Yadav Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and others decided on 29.8.2006 allowing the writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that claim of petitioner is unsustainable and his appointment was purely based on honorarium basis w.e.f. 18.7.1995, he has leave the job w.e.f. 18.7.1985. Post in question itself has been abolished, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual, which is emerging in the present is that petitioner has been appointed on temporary cook on fixed honorarium of Rs. 100/- per month on 17.1.1984. Petitioner continued to work on the said terms and condition and on 16.7.1995 petitioner leave the place (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ) at page 17. Petitioner has himself mentioned that he has lost his mental imbalance and was under going treatment. His condition improve w.e.f. 25.8.1998. Thereafter when he was physically fit, then he represented the joining. Nature of appointment of petitioner is purely temporary in the present case. Post in question itself has been abolished on 7.12.1995. Once it is factual position that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and post in question was daily wager post. Admittedly since 18.7.1995 till the date of abolition of the post, petitioner was not mentally fit, as per this admission, as on date no relief whatsoever could be accorded. The judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28190 of 1999 Daya Ram Yadav Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and others decided on 29.8.2006 will not at all come to the rescue of the petitioner, inasmuch as, in the said case post in question have not at all been abolished and fact of the matter is that order in question is stigmatic in nature. Here fact of the matter are altogether different. Petitioner had leave his duty on 18.7.1995 and from own admission of petitioner, he is low paid employee and is running from pillar to post. Once appointment of petitioner was purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, as such no relief can be accorded to the petitioner.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 2.11.1007

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.