Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ranjendr Prasad Sharma v. Sachiv Parishan Sahakari Ganna Vikas Sammitti And Others - WRIT - A No. 15343 of 1989 [2007] RD-AH 7552 (24 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).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.  

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment treating Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14047 of 1989Baleshwar Singh and others Vs. Special Secretary and others as leading case.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the orders dated 26.6.1989 and 1.7.1989 passed by the District Cane Officer Meerut and Special Secretary, Mawana, Co-operative Can Union Ltd., appended as Annexures 6,7-A to 7-J to the writ petitions.  By the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioners havery been reverted from the post of Seasonal Clerk to the post of Purchi Distributor.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners claim that they were initiatilly appointed as Purchi Distributors but  duties of seasonal Clerks were being taken from them by the employers.  Since the petitioners were not given the designation and pay scale of Seasonal Clerks, an industrial dispute was raised by way of concilliation proceedings.  The parties entered into a settlement on 7.10.1985 vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition during the concilliation proceedings. The settlement contains the signatures of authorized representatives of the petitioners and Secretary on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 5 as well as that of Regional Concilliation Officer, Meerut.  In pursuance of the said agreement, designation and pay scale of Seasonal Clerks were given to the petitioners.

It is claimed by the petitioners that District Cane Authority, Meerut- respondent no. 5, who is appointing authority of the Seasonal Clerk, approved the settlement aforesaid which is evident from his letter dated 21.1.1986 addressed to respondent no. 3, appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

Thereafter respondent no. 3 issued appintment letters to the petitioners, appended as Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

The petitioners claim that they were paid salary of the post of Seasonal Clerk for the seasons 1985-86 to 1988-89 but were illegally  reverted to the post of Parchi Distributor vide order dated 1.7.1989, appended as Annexures 7-A to 7-J to the writ petition, passed by Special Secretary, Mawana Ganna Sahakari Samiti- respondent no. 1. It is alleged that before their respective impugned reversion orders were passed, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction by instituting the aforementioned writ petitions and the following interim order was passed by this Court on 11.7.1989:-

Hon. V.N. Khare, J

Hon. G.K. Mathur, J

Meanwhile the operation of the impugned orders dated 26.6.1989 and 1.7.1989 (Annexures 6 and 7-A to 7-J) shall remain stayed.

Dt. 11.7.1989                                            Sd/- V.N.Khare,J

                                                                 Sd/- G.K. Mathur,J."

Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that in pursuance of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondents dated 7.10.1985, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Seasonal Clerk and they were continuously working as such to the satisfaction of all concerned but the impugned orders of reversion was passed without hearing them in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which is not sustainable in law.

Per contra, counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioners were not appointed by the appointing authority and the appointment orders were issued by the Secretary who was not their appointing authority, hence they were reverted.

No other point has been argued.  

It is not the question of appoitment of the petitioners or their termination from service, which is involved in the present writ petitions, but the question of reversion from the post of Seasonal Clerk to that of Parchi Distributor, which is subject matter of challenge. If the petitioners had not been appointed by the competant authority or their appointment was illegal, their servides could have been terminated after affording opportunity of hearing to them but they could not have been reverted on the ground that their appoitment orders had been passed by an authority who was not their appoiting authority or lower in rank to the appointing authority.  

After their appointment, the petitioner had worked during the seasons 1985-86 to 1988-89 on the post of Seasonal Clerk, and were paid corresponding wages. It is apparent from record that the order of reversion was illegal,  arbitrary and without appreciation of mind.  This view finds support from the decisions in Basdeo Tewari V. Kanpur University-1998(6) JT-464 Budhi Nath Chaudhari V. Abani Kumar-2001(3) SCC-328 and Nayagarh Co operative Central Bank V. Narain Rath -AIR 1977 SC-112.

It is admitted fact that the petitioners were also not given any opportnity of hearing before passing the impugned order of reversion.  It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have got appointment by fraud or misrepresentation.  If they were appointed on the post of Parchi Distributor and work of Seasonal Clerk was taken from them they were entitled to the wages of the officiating higher post but in the circumstances they could not have been reverted to the post of Parchi Distributor without any opportunity to put forward their defence, particularly in view of the fact that they had worked as seasonal clerks from 1985-86 to 1988-89, i.e., for about 3 years since their appointment till passing of the impugned orders.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed.  The impugned orders dated 26.6.1989 and 1.7.1989 passed by the District Cane Officer Meerut and Special Secretary, Mawana, Co-operative Can Union Ltd., appended as Annexures 6,7-A to 7-J to the writ petitions are  quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioners as Seasonal Clerks with all consequential benefits.

The connected writ petitions also stand allowed in terms of this judgment. No order as to costs.

Dated 23.4.2007



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.