Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAND LAL RAM versus UNION OF INDIA THRU' SECY. MIN. OF COMM. DEPTT. OF POSTS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nand Lal Ram v. Union Of India Thru' Secy. Min. Of Comm. Deptt. Of Posts - WRIT - A No. 33352 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 256 (4 August 2003)

 

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. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 33352 OF 2003

Nand Lal Ram ------ Petitioner

 Vs.

Union of India & ors. ------       Respondents

______

Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J

Hon'ble D.P.Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, by which Claim Petition of the respondent no. 4 has been allowed and that of the petitioner has been rejected.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Shakha Dak Pal pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 4 was selected and issued appointment letter dated 19.7.2001. He took over the charge on 19.7.2001. He also got the training and started to work. Later on present petitioner filed a complaint against him that he did not have landed property in his name which was required in the advertisement. Show cause notice dated 24.1.2002 was served upon him. He filed the reply immediately on 15.2.2002. His services were terminated vide order dated 12.4.2002, which was challenged by respondent no. 4.

Present petitioner was given ad hoc/temporary posting on the said post after removal of the respondent no. 4 with a stipulation that his services could be terminated at any time. Being aggrieved, he also filed an Application No. 655 of 2002 before the Tribunal.

Both the petitions were heard together and disposed of by the common judgment and order. Claim of the respondent no. 4 was accepted. Claim of the present petitioner was rejected on the ground that the appointment letter of the present petitioner has stipulation that he was appointed on stop-gap basis on contract which was liable to be terminated any time, therefore, he did not acquire any right whatsoever.

So far as the claim of the respondent no. 4 was concerned, it was allowed because the termination of his service on the ground that he did not have the landed property was not found to be correct for the reason that his father had a lot of movable and immovable properties, including the landed property, and he was a co-sharer therein. More so, he was better qualified as he had secured 67.16% marks in the High School while the present petitioner could secure only 48.7% marks. Considering the merit of the respondent no. 4 he was preferred. Hence this petition.

We have heard Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri P. K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.

Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal that he was a co-sharer in the landed property owned by his father is not correct for the reason that provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable in the instant case. The provisions of a special Act, i.e., U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1951 which provide that a son cannot have share in the property during the life time of his father. However, Shri I.R.Singh could not satisfy the Court as to whether this point had been agitated before the Tribunal because the issue of applicability of the provision of U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act has not been dealt with.

Considering the fact that respondent no. 4 had secured 67.16% marks in High School and present petitioner had secured 48.7 % marks, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, particularly when the order seems to have been passed to do substantial justice.

Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

4.8.2003

AKSI


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.