High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mahfooz Ahmad v. Union Of India & Others - WRIT - A No. 15597 of 2003  RD-AH 88 (9 April 2003)
COURT NO. 38
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO 15597 Of 2003
Mahfooz Ahmad ----- Petitioner
Union of India & ors. ----- Respondents.
Hon'ble Ghanshyam Dass, J.
This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had been engaged as a casual labour with the respondent no. 2 from 10th February, 1986 to 1990 with certain breaks. He was disengaged by an oral order dated 31.12.1990. Petitioner had challenged the said order after expiry of four years by filing the O.S.No. 1538 of 1994, which was disposed of directing the respondent authority to consider his case. However his representation was rejected vide order dated 15.3.2001. He again preferred the petition challenging the said order dated 15.3.2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. The learned Tribunal after considering the pleadings/submissions/evidence led by the parties before it had recorded a finding of fact that petitioner was disengaged on 31st December, 1990. He never made any application for re-engagement nor he filed any representation before any authority, and after expiry of four years he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for inclusion of his name in the seniority list in pursuance of the Notification dated 4.4.1994, by which, the respondent had called upon the persons to give their applications in a prescribed form who intended to work as casual labour. But, the petitioner had never submitted the application. Tribunal held that as the petitioner had been disengaged in 1990 there was no occasion for him to file a claim petition even in 1994 and as he remained out of service for 11 years before filing the second claim petition, his conduct of not applying in pursuance of the Notification dated 4.4.1994, itself, disentitled him for any relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any material on the basis of which it may be held that the judgment and order impugned requires any interference in a limited jurisdiction of judicial review by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.