Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Devendra Kumar Tewari v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 16103 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 1077 (15 April 2005)


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).


Court No. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16103 of 2003

DevendraKumar  Tewari       Vs.           State of U.P. & others


Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

By means of the present petition the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 23.1.2003 whereby his claim for regularisation has been rejected and has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on Group-D post from the date his juniors have been regularised with all consequential benefits.

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged.

The office has informed that the counter affidavit alleged to have been filed by learned Standing Counsel in 2003 could not be traced out. However, Sri R.K. Tiwari learned Standing Counsel has submitted an attested true copy of counter affidavit, which is taken on record and to be treated as part of the record.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Earlier this Court vide order dated 29.1.2002 had directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment in accordance with the Rules namely U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Payments of Group-D Posts Rules, 2001 and also in the light of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal and others(2002(2) UPLBEC page 1595). It is pursuant to the said direction the impugned order dated 23.1.2003 have been issued. The impugned order mentions, firstly that the petitioner did not appear for interview before the Committee considering the matter of regularisation and secondly, he did not submit the necessary documents which are required according to the regularisation Rules.

The contention of the petitioner is that he was never informed or communicated to appear before the Committee for interview and secondly it has not been communicated as to what documents were lacking. In the counter affidavit it has been alleged that the petitioner was not working on the initial date for consideration of regularisation i.e. 29.6.91 and also not working on the date of the enforcement of the Rules i.e. 21.12.2001 and was therefore, not covered for regularisation. It has also been averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has worked for very short period from October 1992 till March 1998.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the annexures nos. 3,4 and 5 to the petition to show that he is working from before 1991 and was also working in December 2001 and as such was entitled for consideration. He has also annexed his certificates of High School and Intermediate as Annexures to the petition. It is contended that on account of the fact that he was not informed about the interview nor did he got any opportunity to satisfy his claim as such his claim has been wrongly rejected.

These are  questions  of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court and therefore, it would be appropriate that the matter be sent back to the authority concerned i.e. Divisional Director, Social Forestry, Forest Circle, Farrukhabad (respondent 2) to reconsider  the claim of the petitioner after giving him opportunity and holding fresh interview by the Committee constituted for the said purpose and thereafter pass speaking order with regard to the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. This exercise may be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner may submit a detail representation annexing all the necessary documents before the authority concerned.

In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.01.2003 is set aside. The respondent 2 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as observed above. There shall be no order as to costs.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.