Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHUPENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhupendra Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 61391 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 3806 (6 March 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

List has been revised but no one has turned up to prosecute the case. Heard Standing counsel and Sri M.C. Tripathi, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Case of the petitioner is that his father while working as Commercial Manager in the respondent- U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd., died in harness on 6.3.2006. The petitioner moved an application dated 6.3.2006 for compassionate appointment which has been rejected vide imugned order dated 17.7.2006 on the ground that since the respondent-Corporation has surplus staff, the petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate ground in the light of Government order dated 11.7.2003.

         Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.7..2006, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

Questions of facts, which requires appraisal of documentary and oral evidence, are not to be decided in the writ jurisdiction as it is not feasible for the High Court to take oral and documentary evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution in every case. Whether there are sanctioned vacant posts available has not been shown by the petitioner.There is no material brought before this Court to establish that the decision of the authority is arbitrary or without any basis. such controversy can only be decided after consideration of  oral and documentary evidence which may be led by the parties before the trial Court..  

 

It is the consistent view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union-(2005)6 SCC-725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another (2005)107 FLR-729 that in case alternate and efficacious remedy is available it should not be bye-passed and writ petition should not be normally entertained by the High        Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has to approach this Court after availing alternate remedy.

The petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, as held in Chandrama Singh V. Managing Director U.P.Co-operative Union Lucknow and others- (1991)1UPLBEC(2)-898.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.   No order as to costs.

Dated 7.3.2007

kkb


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.