Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVINDRA KUMAR TIWARI versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NALKOOP ANURAKSHAN KHAND AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravindra Kumar Tiwari v. Executive Engineer Nalkoop Anurakshan Khand And Others - WRIT - A No. 19343 of 1990 [2007] RD-AH 9166 (14 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner was appointed under U.P. Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness)Rules, 1974 vide order dated 15.3.1989, appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petion on compassionate ground on account of accidental death of his father late Sri Prem Shankar Tiwari, who was a permanent Tubewill Operator in the Irrigation Department. The letter of appointment of the petitioner dated 15.3.`989 is as under :-

"             dk;kZy; vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk

             uydwi vuqj{k.k [k.M] >kWlh

         dk;kZy; Kki la[;k 128 ekg 3@89

Jh johUnz dqekj frokjh iq= Lo0 Jh izse'kadj frokjh dwi pkyd xzke mn;djuiqj iks0 ijor[kkuh ftyk okjk.klh dks fu;fer vf/k"Bku esa uydwi pkyd ds in ij osrueku 330&7&365&8&381 n0jks0&8&405&9&450 n0jks0 &9&475esa 'kklukns'k la0 th&12@1973 dkfeZd&2 fnukad 22&6&84 esa fufgr izkfo/kku ds vUrZxr e`rd vkfJr ds #i esa uydwi pkyd ds in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djusa dh frfFk ls fuf;qDr dh tkrh gS A ;g vkns'k loZFkk vLFkkbZ rFkk fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr dh tk ldrh gS A budks ,d ekg dk uydwi pkyd ds in dk izf'k{k.k 15 fnu dk flfoy rFkk 15 fnu dk esdsfudy izkIr djuk gksxk A budh Lfkkiuk izFke mi[k.M esa dh tkrh gS A lgk;d vfHk;Urk izFke budsk izf'k{k.k izkIr djkdj rFkk izf'k{k.k ls larq"V gksus ij budh fu;qfDr gsrq v/kksgLr{kjh ls vkns'k izkIr dj ysaxs A blds fy, bUgsa dksbZ ;k=k HkRrk ns; ugha gksxk A budks fuEufyf[kr izek.ki= ,d ekg ds vUnj izkIr dj izsf"kr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk %&

1& 100#0 dk izfrHkwfe tks v/kksgLrk{kjh ds uke ca/kd gksxh A jk"V`h; cpr ;kstuk ikl cqd Onkjk tek djuk gksxk

2& LoLFkrk izek.k i= eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh okjk.klh ls izkIr dj tek djuk gksk

3& budks uydwy pkyd cksMZ rFkk Mh-vkj0vks0 dh ijh{kk mRrh.k djuk gksxk

4& pfj= izek.k i= T;s"B iqfyl v/kh{kd okjk.klh ls izkIr dj tek djuk gksxk

                                              g- vkj0 ih0 xxZ

                                             vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk"

             

His grievance is that by the impugned order dated 21.4.1989 passed by the Executive Engineer, his services have been terminated without any notice or opportunity, which is as under :-

"                dk;kZy; vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk

               uydwi vuqj{k.k [k.M] Hknksgh

        dk;kZy; Kki la0 141 ekg 4@89

v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk] uydwi e.My okjk.klh ds i=kad 2848 (ueaok@bZ&6@ew0vk0) fnukad okjk.klh vizSy 19]89 ds vuqikyu dsa dk;kZy; Kki la0 128 ekg 3@89 rFkk i=kad 359@bZ&10 ?k fnukad 15-3-89 Onkjk fuxZr Jh jfoUnz dqekj frokjh dwi pkyd dk fu;qfDr vkns'k rkRdkfyd izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkk gS A ;g vkns'k fnukad 21-4-89 ls izHkkoh gksxk A

                                g0       vkj0ih0 xxZ

                                       vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk"

             

It appears that the services of the petitioner were terminated in terms of the appointment letter in which it was provided that the services could be terminated without notice to him.

The controversy involved in this writ petition is covered by the decisions of this Court in catena of cases. Civil Misc. Writ No. 25956 of 1997- Ajay Kumar Sharma V. State of U.P. and others decided on 10.1.2000 reported in (2000)1 UPLBEC-719 may be referred to in this regard wherein it has been held that appointment made under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is permanent in nature and cannot be terminated. Hence the condition in the appointment letter that services of the petitioner could be terminated without any notice is against settled position of law. Services of employee cannot be terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing  and except in accordance with law.

Following the ratio laid down in Ajay Kumar Sharma 's case(supra), the writ petition is allowed. Since petitione is continuting in service in terms of interim orders dated 21.8.1990 and is getting salary, month by month, question of issuance of any direction for payment of salary does not arise. It is made clear that in the circumatances the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of permanent appointment. No order as to costs.

Dated 14.5.07

kkb


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.