Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI OM versus CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Om v. Consolidation Commissioner & Others - WRIT - A No. 23554 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 4780 (25 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

Court No.27

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23554 of 2000

Hari Om          Vs.     Consolidation Commissioner U.P. &        others

     ........

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 33203 of 1999 claiming salary for certain period for which he had worked and also regularization. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated  10.8.99 with the direction to the respondent no.2 (The Commissioner Consolidation U.P. Lucknow) to look into the matter and pass appropriate and speaking order after obtaining necessary report etc. The petitioner submitted copy of the said order dated 10.8.99 before the Commissioner Consolidation on 18.8.99. Pursuant thereto it appears that the Joint Director Consolidation, Mathura vide letter dated 20.4.2000 recommended to the Consolidation Commissioner that the petitioner has worked for the period 2.4.99 till  16.11.99 as Jeep driver and would be entitled to salary for the said period. Further with regard to claim of regularization, necessary direction were sought for from the Consolidation Commissioner. According to the petitioner no final decision was taken in the matter of the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed the present petition with the prayer to quash the oral order of the Commissioner Consolidation dated 7.5.2000 terminating his services and for a direction to the same authority to allow the petitioner to work as a driver. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 i.e. Consolidation Commissioner has still not taken final decision in pursuance to the earlier direction issued by this Court and has illegally terminated the services of the petitioner. On perusal of Annexure-3 to the petition, which is the  letter of the Joint Director dated 20.4.2000 it is clear that the petitioner had worked only up to 16.11.99 and it was till the said period only that recommendation, was made to pay the salary. As such the claim of the petitioner regarding termination after 16.11.99 does not appear to be correct as he was not in service after the said date.

However, considering the facts and circumstances that there  already exists a direction to decide the two claims of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.33203/99 which according to the petitioner has still not being finally decided, it is directed that the Consolidation Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders on the recommendation of the Joint Director Consolidation dated 20.4.2000 which was issued in pursuance to the earlier direction of this Court on 10.8.99. Such a decision may be taken by the respondent no.1 Consolidation Commissioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Dt.25.10.2005

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.