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


Dharmendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 131 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2954 (16 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).


Court No. 32

Special Appeal No. 131 of 2005

Dharmendra Kumar              Vs.      State of U.P. and others.


Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam A.C.J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

We have hared learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.01.2005 impugned in this appeal.

It appears that the petitioner is working as Inferior Filed Worker in the office of the City Maleria Control Unit at Jhansi. He was however attached in the office of Additional Commissioner with the approval of the Additional Director (Medical & Health), Jhansi vide order dated 2.9.2004. When he did not report for duty by the order impugned in the Writ Petition, he was reminded to join at the office of Additional Commissioner failing which his salary shall not be released.

Learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the other two employees Sri Dinesh Kumar Raikwar and Jiya Lal Kundaliya were also attached along with the appellant by the order of the Chief Medical Officer, Jhansi dated 2/3.9.2004, but they did not submit their joining, despite that their salary is being paid regularly, and only the petitioner appellant has been singled out by the respondent and his salary has been withheld only on the ground that he has not submitted the joining at the place of attachment

We are afraid, such a contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner having not complied with the order of the superior authority by not submitting the joining at the place of attachment, cannot claim salary. The order of attachment was passed in September 2004 and more than four months have passed but he has not submitted joining and therefore, he is not entitled to get salary without submitting joining to the place of attachment. We do not find any fault in the order of the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition.

At this stage learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to submit his joining as per order and therefore, the respondent be directed to permit him to join . Learned Standing Counsel fairly states that in the event the appellant submits joining, the same can be accepted provided the order of attachment has not been recalled or modified. We therefore, provide that in the event the order of attachment dated 2/3.9.2004 still stands and has not been recalled or modified and the appellant submits his joining in pursuance thereof, the same may be accepted.

If, however, there is any impediment in accepting the joining of the appellant the concerned authority shall pass reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner-appellant.

This appeal and the writ petition are accordingly disposed of with the above orders.




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.