Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AKHILESH CHOUDHARY versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Akhilesh Choudhary v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 55862 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 1231 (4 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55862 of 2000

Akhilesh Choudhary    Vs.       State of U.P. and others

       .....

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No.40605 of 1998 claiming regular pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work. This Court vide order dated 6.1.99 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondent no.3 i.e. Superintending Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Varanasi to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months. This Court further directed that till consideration of the representation, the petitioner's services shall not be interfered with and he will be allowed to work on the same term. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Superintending Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Varanasi vide order dated 22.7.99 has held that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year and therefore, no case for regularization or for absorption in the work charge division is made out and accordingly rejected the representation. Against the said order of the Superintending Engineer  the present petition has been filed in which the petitioner has assailed the findings of the Superintending Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Varanasi and it is alleged that he fulfilled all the conditions for regular appointment and regular pay scale. The petitioner has alleged that he has worked for more number of days as indicated in the impugned order.

Counter affidavit has been filed in which similar stand has been taken as contained in the impugned order of Superintending Engineer. The facts therefore, as raised in the petition are disputed in the counter affidavit and this Court cannot decide such a controversy involving disputed a question of fact. It requires scrutiny of evidences which is not permissible under law. Petitioner may however, approach the appropriate forum by raising as industrial dispute where questions of fact may be determined.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner by way of raising industrial dispute. Any observations made above will not come in the way of the Authority/Tribunal/ Court as the case may be while deciding the claim of the petitioner.

This petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt.4.5.2005

Hsc/


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.