Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. GEETA DEVI versus U.P. PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Geeta Devi v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal And Others - WRIT - A No. 3372 of 1986 [2004] RD-AH 53 (30 January 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

Reserved/Court No.1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3372 of 1986

Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, and others

*****

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble V.C. Mishra, J.

(Delivered by Hon. V.C. Mishra, J.)

Heard Sri Govind Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. representing the respondents.

The petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi filed the above said writ petition challenging the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.1986 passed by the Chairman of respondent no.1 dismissing her claim petition. The petitioner has sought the relief for quashing of the same. It is further prayed that a mandamus be issued commanding the respondents 2,3 and 4 to pay the salary and declaration of continuity of salary with consequential benefits.

The petitioner had claimed to have been appointed as Aya in the upgraded Primary Health Center, Kasiya, district Deoria by the Chief Medical Officer by an order-dated 1.6.1982. She was paid salary for the months of September 1983 to December 1983 and since January 1984, she was not being paid her salary.

During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died on 22.2.1989. A substitution application was filed on 16th March, 1989 seeking substitution of her heirs and legal representatives in place of the petitioner. The substitution application has been allowed.

The claim of the petitioner was resisted before respondent no.1 by the opposite parties 2 to 4 mainly on the ground that the alleged appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio since it is made by an authority which was not competent at all to issue such appointment letter under law and more so since the said appointment was made against a non existent post.

The respondent no.1 after thorough examination and critical scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and material produced by them before it and the relevant Government Orders applicable in this context arrived at a well reasoned Judgment and Order. It held that the alleged appointment on the post of Aya in the upgraded Primary Health Center, Kasiya district Deoria was not made by a competent authority and was against a non existent post as the Government Order under which the post was alleged to have been created had not come into operation at the time the Chief Medical Officer had issued appointment order of the petitioner. Thus, the said order was void ab initio and the petitioner could not get benefit of appointment and continuity in service on the basis of such void orders and dismissed the claim petition.

We have looked into the matter in detail. Both the above said findings of fact are based on relevant Government Orders and on consideration of the material relied upon in the impugned Judgment and Order dated 1.6.1982 passed by respondent no.1. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before us that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. More so, the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal are based on the relevant material on record and are not open to challenge before this Court exercising special and extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the appointment of the petitioner was void ab initio and it is settled that void appointment cannot bestow upon the appointee any legally cognizable and judicially enforceable right. The appointment of the petitioner being void ab initio, no benefits could be granted in her favour as claimed by the petitioner and the same has been rightly turned down by the Tribunal. A similar Writ Petition No.4518 of 1986 Ram Avadh Prasad Vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others has also been dismissed by this Court on the same grounds, vide Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2001.

The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.

There is no order as to costs.

January 30, 2004

Hasnain


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.