Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAI PRAKASH SINGH YADAV versus D.M., GHAZIPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jai Prakash Singh Yadav v. D.M., Ghazipur & Others - WRIT - A No. 38166 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 7373 (23 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

                                                                               Court No.31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38166 of 2001

Jai Prakash Singh Yadav   Vs. District Magistraqte, Ghazipur

and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. Despite the respondents having filed counter affidavit, no one is present on behalf of the respondents.

The brief facts of this case are that by an order dated 1.7.1997, the petitioner was appointed as Tractor Driver on daily wage basis. After completion of three years of service, by order dated 1.7.2000 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) the petitioner was regularized in service as a Tractor Driver in the pay scale of Rs.775-1040. The petitioner thereafter was paid his regular salary in the aforesaid pay scale. Then by order dated 30.9.2001 passed by the respondent no.2, the petitioner has been reverted back as daily wage employee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this writ petition has been filed.

The submission of Sri A.K.Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the service of the petitioner has been confirmed and regularized as Tractor Driver in a regular pay scale, his reversion on daily wage basis could not have been ordered. It has further been submitted that in any case, the aforesaid order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus also the order impugned deserves to be quashed.

By an interim order dated 26.11.2001, the impugned order dated 30.9.2001 passed by respondent no.2 was stayed. It has  been stated that after passing of the interim order, the Executive Officer has, on 8.4.2002, himself withdrawn the order dated 30.9.2001. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been permitted to join as regular tractor driver and is being paid regular salary but the arrears of salary have not been paid.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the petitioner had been duly confirmed as a tractor driver and the impugned order dated 30.9.2001 reverting the petitioner as daily wage worker had been passed without giving opportunity of hearing and without complying with the requisite procedure, which has also been withdrawn on 8.4.2002, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order  dated 30.9.2001 passed by respondent no.2 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment of arrears of his salary and all other consequential benefits. No order as to cost.

Dt/-23.4.2007

Ru

               


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.