Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PATI RAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pati Ram v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 1207 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 579 (10 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. 1207 of 2007

Pati Ram

  Vs.

State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as daily wager Chaukidar in Forest Department since the year 1988. Petitioner has contended that in consonance with the provisions as contained under U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages  Appointment of Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, his claim was liable to be considered for regularization. As no decision in  regard to petitioner's regularization was taken, petitioner preferred writ petition No.73351 of 2005, wherein this Court on 01.12.2005 gave a direction for consideration of claim of petitioner. Thereafter order in question has been passed mentioning therein that services of petitioner were not at all found to be continuous, as such petitioner was not entitled to be regularized.

Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that since the year 1988 petitioner, along with 32 other persons, was appointed and said 32 persons have been regularized, but petitioner's claim has been arbitrarily rejected without giving any reason, whatsoever.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand contended that cogent reasons have been given and as petitioner was not found to have worked continuously, his claim for regularization has been rightly refused.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges is to the effect it was specific case of petitioner that since 1988 along with 32 persons, he had been appointed and all of them except for petitioner have been regularized and claim of petitioner has been non-suited on the ground that as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of 2001 Rules referred to above, petitioner's services have not been found to be continuous. The impugned order does not reflect as to what was the period for which petitioner did not function and what was period of his functioning and whether  gap, if any, was it artificial gap? The impugned order is vague and evasive and no details have been given about the period for which petitioner has functioned and artificial gaps, if any, are to be ignored. Consequently, in the present case no reasons have been given except for making bald statement of fact that petitioner's services have not been found to be continuous.

In view of the above discussion, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.07.2006 passed by Prabhagiya Nideshak, Samajik Vaniki, Van Prabhag, Farrukhabad, is quashed and set aside. The said authority is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law by giving reasons an ignoring the artificial breaks,if any.

10.01.2007

SRY


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.