High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Ladli Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 70801 of 2006  RD-AH 3885 (7 March 2007)
Court no. 1
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70801 of 2006
Smt. Ladli Devi versus State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier on adhoc basis in the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Firozabad on 7.8.1992.
It is averred in the writ petition that in the mean time the petitioner and four others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6879 (S/B) of 1992 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The Court vide order dated 21.10.92 directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till the regularly selected candidates were not appointed. Thereafter the services of the petitioner and four others were terminated vide order dated 1.11.2000.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid termination order dated 1.11.2000 they filed Writ Petition No. 6458(s/s) of 2000 before Lucknow Bench of this Court. The operation and enforcement of the termination order dated 1.11.2000 was stayed by the Court vide order dated 14.11.2000. In pursuance of the aforesaid interim order dated 14.11.2000 the petitioner and four others joined on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier.
It is stated by the petitioner that the services of six persons namely, Km. Om Prabha,Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Kartal Singh, Radhey Shyam Singh, Gaya Prasad and Ram Das excluding the petitioner and one Tejveer Singh have been regularized on the post of Clerks-cum-Cashiers. Respondent no.4, Secretary-cum-General Manager, District Cooperative Bank Limited, Firozabad has recommended the case of the petitioner and one Tejveer Singh before respondent no.3 for their regularizations but the same has remained unactined till date.
The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that a direction may be issued to respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 17.3.2005 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.
The Standing counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
In the circumstances, respondent no.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 17.3.2005 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the representation, he may approach the Labour Court.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.