High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ajai Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 24603 of 1991  RD-AH 839 (21 September 2004)
Court No. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24603 Of 1991
Ajai Kumar Singh
State of U.P. & Others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.6.1991 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4.
The petitioner was appointed as a ''Saving Advertiser' by respondent no. 3 vide appointment letter dated 7.5.1986 on a fixed pay of Rs. 700/- per month on contract basis. He was posted in Tehsil Muhammadabad Mohna District Azamgarh, initially for a period of one year from the date of his taking over charge. The period of appointment was extended from time to time which continued till 12.9.1990.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has worked from 1986 to 1990 and therefore he is entitled for a reward of more than Rs. 10,000/- for payment of which the respondents have not taken any steps and on the contrary his services have come to an end due to non-renewal of the contract vide impugned order dated 26.6.1991 on the ground that he has not achieved his aim according to the standard given in the contract.
From the averments made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition as well as from the Annexures appended to the writ petition it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner was based on contract. No interim order was granted to the petitioner when the petition was presented on 26.8.1991.
Standing Counsel submits that order for enforcement of a contract of personal service can be got enforced by a Labour Court or the petitioner may go to civil court for breach of contract but his remedy does not lie before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He further submits that there being no interim order for more than 13 years the petitioner cannot be granted any relief at this stage. He also submits that during this period the petitioner must have been gainfully working on commission basis.
There is force in the submissions made by the Standing Counsel that a contract for personal service cannot be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution. If there is any breach of contract the petitioner could have approached civil court to redress his grievance at this belated stage after more than 13 years.
For the reasons stated above, the impugned order cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.