Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


State Of U.P. And Others v. Smt. Krishna Kumari Srivastava And Another - WRIT - A No. 66174 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 30 (1 January 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).


Court No.9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66174 of 2005

State of U.P. and others------------------------------------------------------Petitioners


Smt. Krishna Kumari Srivastava

and another-----------------------------------------------------------------Respondents

Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.

Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.

We have heard Sri Akshyabar Singh, learned standing counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.M.B. Sinha learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 .

Respondent no.1 was appointed as Basic Health Worker (BHW) on 22.3.1982.  She was permitted to join on the post of Auxiliary Nurses Midwife.  It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no.1 since April 1989 did not join duty. However, she joined on 21.5.1992 which was accepted by the petitioners conditionally stating therein that respondent no.1 would be permitted to join after they receive necessary instructions from the higher authorities as to whether respondent no.1 may be permitted to join or not.  Thereafter nothing happened.  The respondent no.1 ultimately filed a claim petition no.1384 of 2001 before  U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow.  The claim petition of the respondent no.1 was partly allowed by the  order dated 11.4.2005 of the Tribunal. The petitioners were directed  to permit the respondent no.1 to join her duty as A.N.M. within one month of the receipt of the order of the Tribunal and pay the regular and back salary according to the rules making it open for the petitioners to take disciplinary action against the respondent no.1 in accordance with law. It is this order of the Tribunal which has been challenged by the petitioners before this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that after 1.4.1989 the respondent no.1 did not join duties and remained absent without sanction  of any leave and as such her lien in the department was cancelled.  For arriving at a conclusion that the respondent no.1 had abandoned her service the petitioners should have obtained instructions from the higher authorities and initiated departmental proceedings. Non-joining of the respondent no.1 was due to no fault of the respondent no.1 but on account of default on behalf of the petitioners.  As such the Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to permit the respondent no.1 to join her duty and pay regular and back salary to her in accordance with law.  Since the Tribunal has granted liberty to the petitioners to initiate departmental disciplinary action against the respondent no.1,  the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Stay order dated 18.10.2005 granted by this court is vacated.

No order as to costs.




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 |

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