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


Shiv Bilas Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 2283 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 957 (15 January 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. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2283 of 2007

Shiv Bilas Yadav


State of U.P. and other

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla.J.

Petitioner has approached this Court requesting therein a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 09.10.2006 passed by District Magistrate, Ballia and any other suitable order be issued.

Brief background of the case is that petitioner was working in Special Land Acquisition Office. Petitioner has contended that he was given appointment on the post of Clerk on daily wages basis and initially he worked in the Public Works Department from 01.11.1980 to 20.02.1981. Thereafter again petitioner was given appointment on daily wages basis in the Special Land Acquisition Office and has worked from 01.06.1982 to 28.02.1986. Petitioner has contended that various persons who have been working have been absorbed whereas  his services has been dispensed with. In this background petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3178 of 1995 (Shiv Bilas Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others). Said writ petitioner was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation. Thereafter representation preferred by petitioner was dismissed on 29.02.1996. Petitioner again preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27597 of 1997. This Court redirected to consider the matter on 22.07.2005. Thereafter District Magistrate, Ballia has passed order dated 09.10.2006 which is subject matter of challenge.

Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that specific case of the petitioner has not at all been adverted to and petitioner has been metted with arbitrary treatment, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis and has functioned till 28.02.1986 with regular interval. By virtue of being daily wager none of legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. In view of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1.

Petitioners has not contended that various similarly situated incumbents have been absorbed. As has already mentioned above petitioner has no legal right to claim for his absorption. Time and again Hon'ble Apex Court has held and the last occasion being in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi reported in 2006(1) SCC 667 that Article 14 postulates positive equality and in case any wrong has been done then qua the same, parity cannot be claimed.            

Consequently, relief which has been claimed by the petitioners cannot be accorded, as such writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.  




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.