Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH SHUKLA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suresh Shukla v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 37870 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 4289 (17 October 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. Tarun Agarwala, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and    the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner alleges that he was given an appointment on the post of computer operator in the office of respondent no.5. Initially payments were made by cheques and thereafter payments were made in cash. The petitioner alleges that now the salary was not being paid. Consequently, the present writ petition was filed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary and permit him to work on the post of computer operator. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an amendment application which was allowed and a prayer was incorporated for quashing the oral order of termination dated 3.11.2003. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit alleging that no post of Computer Operator has been sanctioned by the State Government and, therefore, no such post exists in the department. The petitioner, was however appointed for doing certain job work for which he was paid the remuneration. The petitioner has filed applications given by the respondents for the job work, on which an order for payment of remuneration has been made. This fact has been denied. The petitioner has no where stated that he was not doing any job work and that he was performing the  regular work of computer operator in the department.

In view of the aforesaid facts, that no sanctioned post existed in the department coupled with the fact that the petitioner has not filed any appointment letter issued in his favour, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Dated:17.10.2005

AKJ(WP 37870.03)


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.