Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANIL KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anil Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 9571 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 8116 (1 May 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.  9571 of 2001

Anil Kumar                   Versus                          State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28.2.2001 whereby his engagement on daily wage basis on a class IV post has been cancelled. He has thus prayed for quashing the said order and also for a direction to regularize him on a class IV post.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally.

The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner continued to work on a class IV post on daily wage basis from 3.6.1991 till the passing of the impugned order dated 28.2.2001. During this period proceedings for regularization had taken place by the respondent-department in which the petitioner was not regularized but was permitted to continue to work on daily wage basis. On a query made by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, on 26.8.1997 the Trade Tax Officer wrote that since the petitioner did not appear before the Selection Committee constituted for the purposes of regularization, hence he could not be regularized. Further, the petitioner kept agitating the matter  and then again on a query made by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Trade, the same Trade Tax Officer wrote on 3.5.2000 that the petitioner was not found suitable for regularization by the Selection Committee. The said Trade Tax Officer has been blowing hot and cold at the same time, once by saying that the petitioner did not appeared before the Selection Committee and then by saying that the petitioner had appear but was not found suitable for regularization. The petitioner then approached the Principal Secretary to the  Government of U.P. and in response thereto the order dated 28.2.2001 has been passed stating that there is no post available for regularization and hence work on daily wage basis be also not taken from the petitioner. In the said order it has been stated that by approaching the Principal Secretary of the State Government, the petitioner has violated the terms of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.

It is not understood when the petitioner was not in Government service, how he could be found guilty of violation of the principles of U.P. Government Servants Conduct  Rules, 1956. Further, in approaching the Principal Secretary of the State Government to seek justice, the petitioner cannot be penalized, as in this case there has been no consistency in the stand taken by the Trade Tax Officer as he has been taking contrary stands from time to time with regard to the consideration of the case of the petitioner for his regularization on a class IV post.

From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that injustice has been done in the case of the petitioner as from the record it appears that the case of the petitioner for regularization has not been considered properly in accordance with law. However, at this stage, direction for regularization of the petitioner  straight away would not be appropriate.

Accordingly, it is directed that in case if the respondents engage any further daily wager, the petitioner shall first be given such opportunity before engaging any other person. It is also provided that while filling up any further post of class IV, the respondents shall first consider the case of the petitioner and preference shall be given to him for such appointment, after giving regard to his experience of having worked for over ten years on a class IV post on daily wage basis. In case if required, relaxation in age may also be given to him while considering his case for regularization. The respondents shall also pay any dues which may have remained to be paid  to the petitioner for the services rendered by him while he had worked on daily wage basis.

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

dt.  1.5.2007

dps


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.