Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. RAJA BETI versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Raja Beti v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 59850 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2801 (13 September 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as dealer of the Co-operative Society known as Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Limited Samho Block Bharthana, District Etawah. He died on 22.1.2005.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being only major member of the family for a direction to respondent no.3 to grant her dealership.

No foundation has been laid down that Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited Samho Block Bharthana, District Etawah is the "State or instrumentality or other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

In view of 2005 (6) SCC-289 Supriya Basu and others Vs. W.B. Housing Board and others and ( 2003) 8 SCC-639, General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad and others, the writ petition is not maintainable as no violation of any statutory rules has been pointed out in the writ petition. The respondents Society does not fulfill any of the tests laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India, ( 1979) 3 SCC-489.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

Dated 13.9.2005

CPP/-59850-2005

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravindra Singh, the counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.6.1996 passed by the Secretary, Co-operative, Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Pilibhit. By the impugned order the appellate authority has confirmed the order of termination of the services of the petitioner.

No foundation has been laid down that Co-operative Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd.  Pilibhit is the "State or instrumentality or other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

In view of 2005 (6) SCC-289 Supriya Basu and others Vs. W.B. Housing Board and others and ( 2003) 8 SCC-639, General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad and others, the writ petition is not maintainable as no violation of any statutory rules has been pointed out in the writ petition. The respondents Society does not fulfill any of the tests laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India, ( 1979) 3 SCC-489.

Moreover, the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy of revision under Regulation 91 of the U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975 which has not been availed of by the petitioner against the impugned order even otherwise the petitioner has alternative remedy before the Labour Court as has been held in (1991) 2 UPLBEC-898, Chandrama Singh Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Union, Luckow and others.

The petitioner may file a revision against the impugned order under Regulation 91 of the aforesaid Regulations, 1975 before the authority concerned within 30 days from today. If it is filed within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the same shall be entertained and decided on merit and not on the ground of limitation.

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Dated  13.9.2005

CPP/-58666-2005

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It appears from prayer no.(b) of the writ petition that the petitioner is not an employee of the U.P. State Handloom Corporation as he has prayed that he may be treated as employee of the Nigam and the difference of salary may be paid to him.   In prayer no. (a)  it has been prayed by the petitioner that the respondents may be directed to pay him the scale of designer as has been paid to the other employees of the U.P. State Handloom Corporation.

It is not feasible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide  question whether the petitioner can be treated as employee of U.P. State Handloom Corporation which has its own Recruitment Rules or will remain a project employee of Hath Kargha Vikas Nigam or is entitled to difference in salary of the post of designer paid to the employees of U.P. Handloom Corporation.

These are the disputed question of facts which requires adjudication by the Labour Court by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Hence, mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Dated 13.9.2005

CPP/-60546-2005

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on 5.7.1983 as Water Women (Jal Sevika) in the Corporation in place of her husband who died in harness. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been promoted to the post of Clerk whereas the other employees have been promoted to the post of Clerk.

These are the disputed questions of facts which require adjudication by the Labour Court by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a representation dated 5.4.2002 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) regarding  her promotion before the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh Region, Aligarh but to no avail.

Though the petitioner has an alternative remedy by filing petition before the Labour Court she prefers that a direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within a time frame to which the standing counsel has no objection.

The writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before   respondent no.2 within 3 weeks from today.

Dated 13.9.2005

CPP/-60593-2005


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.