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


Shakuntala Devi v. Principal Of S.R.S. Mahila P.G.College Bareilly And Others - WRIT - A No. 28210 of 1995 [2007] RD-AH 9172 (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).


Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28210 of 1995

Shakuntala Devi


Principal off Sahu Ram Swarup Mahila Post Graduate College, Bareilly & Others

Connected with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24084 of 1999

Shakuntala Devi


Principal of Shahu Ram Swaroop Mahila Post Graduate College, Bareilly & Others


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This order has been passed on the recall application condoning the delay in filing the same. With the consent of the parties the petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

Sri A.K.Goel, learned counsel for the respondents, states that the order dated 29.9.1995 in Writ Petition No. 28210 of 1995 was passed by this Court without notice to respondent no. 1. He further contends that in this writ petition as well as in the connected writ petition the petitioner has prayed for regularisation of her services which cannot be granted by this Court in view of the decision rendered in State of Punjab Vs. Sardara Singh, (1998) 9 S.C.C. 709.

It is stated that the respondent had to face contempt of the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 29.9.1995 as the Court has by inadvertence in the aforesaid ex-parte order observed that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service on the Class IV post if he is not otherwise disqualified. It is stated that while disposing of Writ Petition No. 28210 of 1995 with the aforesaid observations and directions it was not the intention of the Court to direct the respondents for continuing the petitioner in service who was on daily wages and had no legal right for regularisation except by way of recruitment as per law. He vehemently urged that the relief of regularisation was not interfered  by the Court in Writ Petition No. 28210 of 1995 also, hence the observations/directions in the order dated 29.9.1995 regarding continuance of the petitioner in service appears to have been made by the Court mistakenly under wrong impression.

In Writ Petition No. 24084 of 1999 also which is connected to Writ Petition No. 28210 of 1995 the relief of regularisation has been claimed which in my opinion cannot be granted in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision rendered in  State of Punjab Vs. Sardara Singh (Supra). The intention of the Court in the observation in the aforesaid order dated 29.9.1995 appears to be that the petitioner being a daily wager it was the discretion of respondent no. 1 to continue her in service or not and if the petitioner could be regularised or absorbed permanently it was for the respondent no. 1 to consider the same.  

In view of the fact that now the writ petitions are being dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and the petitioner being a workman, she  may raise an industrial dispute in respect of her grievances. If the reference is made to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal will not be influenced by the observations made in this judgment and the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal shall decide the reference on merits on the basis of evidence and pleadings of the parties and after perusing the record.

The industrial dispute may be raised by her within a period of two months. In case of failure to arrive at a settlement the Regional Conciliation Officer shall refer the same to the competent Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and will not reject the reference on the ground of limitation, if any, as the petitioner had approached this Court in writ petition for mitigation of her grievances in 1995 and 1999.

The petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.

Dated: 14.5.2007



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.