Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VISHNU AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vishnu And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 30540 of 2003 [2004] RD-AH 104 (27 February 2004)

 

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.21

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30540 of 2003

Vishnu  and others                Versus                 State of U.P. and others

                                       Connect with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36555 of 2003

Phool Chandra Gupta              Versus               State of U.P.and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to regularise  the services of the petitioners in accordance with U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wagers Appointment of Group ''D' Posts  Rules 2001 passed by the State Government.

The counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners, who are daily wagers, are entitled to be regularized in service under the U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wagers Appointment of Group ''D' Posts Rules, 2001. The counsel for the respondents submits that in view of  Surendra Kumar Sharma Versus Vikas Adhikari and another, (2003) 5 SCC-12 the High  Court is not supposed to pass an order for regularization of the services of a Daily wager. It has been stated in para 9 of the writ petition that instead of regularizing their services respondent no.2 has stopped them from coming to work which means that their services have been terminated w.e.f. 1.7.2003. In this petition this order has not been challenged and mandamus to continue petitioners in service and regularization has been prayed. The Apex Court in case of Ram Chandra  and others Vs. ADM and others reported in  1999 SC-1543 has held that unless order of termination is set aside  no direction for regularisation can be passed by Court.  Sri B.D. Mandhyan   senior counsel for the petitioners submits that several posts are vacant and the services of the  petitioners can  be regularized, if they are eligible.  This Court can not go into the question of eligibility of the petitioners.

In the aforesaid circumstances, these petitions are not maintainable and are dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Dated 27.2.2004

CPP/-


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.