Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVINDRA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravindra Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 576 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8939 (10 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.32

Special Appeal No.576 of 2007

Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.

This intra court appeal, under the rules of Court, arises from the judgment dated 10.4.2007 of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5669 of 1991.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 & 4 and also perused the judgment under appeal.

Admittedly, the appellant was never appointed on regular basis against the substantive vacancy of Sanitary Inspector and thus, he has no right to the post.  

Shri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appointment of the appellant was approved by the Director vide letter dated 7.10.1988 (Annexure 7) as Sanitary Inspector, Nagar Palika Dadri in the District Ghaziabad. He further submitted that the appellant is continuing on ad hoc basis since 1988, therefore, he is entitled to be regularized under the various Government Orders issued from time to time.  He relying on Rule 21 - A of the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966 contended that the appellant is entitled to be regularized.  

We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that, admittedly, the appellant was appointed on short-term basis as daily wager by the Municipal Board and not by the competent authority and, therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of regularization under the aforesaid rule. The Director in his letter has also stated that he had no objection if the appellant is engaged on account of exigency as an interim arrangement.  It further appears from the aforesaid letter that the post has not yet been created and, therefore, in the absence of post and also for the reason that his very appointment as daily wager was de hors the rules, the benefit of regularization cannot be extended to the appellant.  We do not find any error in the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge.

The special appeal, being without merit, is dismissed.

10.5.2007

A.


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.