Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINOD CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & OTHERS versus THE STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinod Chandra Srivastava & Others v. The State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 16251 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6298 (5 April 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 Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner  as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working as Meth or Beldar on daily wage basis in the office of Respondent no.3 for the last more than 15 years. It has been submitted that they would be entitled to be regularized in service under U.P.Regularization of Daily Wage Appointments on Group C Post Rules, 2001. The petitioners claim that they have all been working since prior to the cut off date mentioned in the said rules. It has also been submitted that there are posts of Meth and Beldars available on which the petitioners can be regularized but the case of the petitioners have not been considered despite the petitioners having filed several representations in this regard.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case if, with regard to their grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioners file a fresh comprehensive representation before Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaunpur, Respondent no.3, along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of two months of the filing of the same.

With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

dt. 5.4.2007

dps

w.p. 16251.07


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.