SATYA NARAIN SHARMA versus PLANT PROTECTION OFFICER AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Satya Narain Sharma v. Plant Protection Officer And Others - WRIT - A No. 13272 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 4935 (26 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. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 13272 of 1997

Satya Narain Sharma vs. Plant Protection Officer

..

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Manav   Bhargava holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Mishra and have perused the record.

The controversy involved in the instant case is that the petitioner  claims that he has been wrongly terminated by way of the impugned order dated 31.3.1997 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition). The termination order records that the petitioner was engaged as a temporary employee in the Plant Protection Division in the Agricultural Department. It appears that as per the terms of employment, the services of the petitioner were terminated after giving him one-month notice and without putting any stigma against him that is to say it was a discharge simplicitor.

Learned standing counsel has placed before the court appointment letter issued to the petitioner (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) which records that the petitioner was engaged on a temporary post and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without giving any reason after giving him one month notice. It is not denied by the petitioner that he has accepted appointment letter and the terms & conditions contained therein. The nature of appointment was completely temporary and subject to the terms & conditions of the letter of appointment. The impugned termination order has been issued by the respondents under the terms & conditions of letter of appointment. It cannot be said that any unfairness has been done to the petitioner.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, I do not think that the petitioner has made out any case, which would warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction as conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.  

Dated 26.10.2005

Rk/13272/97-2

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.