Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTOSH KUMAR AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRY. P.W.D. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Santosh Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. P.W.D. And Others - WRIT - A No. 891 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 496 (9 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 891 of 2007

Santosh Kumar and others

Versus

State of U.P and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J

Petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-authorities to accommodate/absorb the petitioners in service on their respective post. Contention of the petitioners is that they have completed more than 240 days and have worked from Feb. 1989 and continued up to  February 1990. Petitioners have contended that they are entitled to get the benefit of the order dated 07.05.1995 and 11.07.1997 as such their claim is liable to be considered for absorption.

From the own showing of the petitioners, petitioners are daily wagers who had worked for short duration, in the year 1989 and 1990 respectively, and since then petitioners have not at all functioned. Once petitioners are daily wagers then by no stretch of imagination they have any right to claim for absorption in the department concerned, as such relief which has been claimed by the petitioners cannot be accorded to them in view of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1.

Petitioners have contended that various similarly situated incumbents have been extended benefit of Government Order dated 07.05.1995 and 11.07.1997. As has already mentioned above petitioners have no legal right to claim for their absorption. Time and again Hon'ble Apex Court has held and the last occasion being in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi reported in 2006(1) SCC 667 that Article 14 postulates positive equality and in case any wrong has been done then qua the same, parity cannot be claimed.            

Consequently, relief which has been claimed by the petitioners cannot be accorded, as such writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.

09.01.2007

Dhruv      


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.