Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' CHIEF SECY. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru' Chief Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 37644 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 60 (5 January 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. 10)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37644 of 2002

Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha,J.

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava (who is himself a practising Advocate and Member of Bar at Allahabad High Court) and Sri Amit Sthalekar, Advocate.

We have given sufficient opportunity to Sri A.K. Srivastava and we have no hesitation in expressing ourselves that unfortunately his argument till now shows that it will be a shere wastage of court's time.

Petitioner has strongly relied upon para-9 of the petition which reads:

"9.    That to get the job is statutory as well as legal rights of dependants of deceased advocates because the opportunity to establish a job is lost by restriction imposed by respondent."

Petitioner has neither disclosed statutory/legal provisions conferring rights of appointment/employment for dependants of the deceased Advocates nor placed statutory or legal provisions before us to the above effect. The petitioner, however, in support of the above contention refers to the decision in the case of Deepak Shukla Versus Smt. Savita Shukla, 2003 (1) I.C.R. 144 (Criminal).

The said case of Deepak Shukla, however, related to the proceedings under Code of Criminal Procedure and pith and substance of the ratio of the said decision is to the effect that every party has right of hearing of his case free from fear and tension.

We are unable to appreciate as to how this decision is relevant for the controversy sought to have been raised in the present petition. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:

"1.  A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari, declaring the Rule 5 of Dying in harness Rules 1974 as ultra vires as it is discriminatory against the basic concept of Preamble of the Constitution as well as against the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2.    A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the conditions of advocates, its dependants under legal and consequential aspect of the restriction imposed on it which is imposed by the government employees.

3.     A writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus  

to the concerned authorities considering the conditions of some of the dependants widows of advocate who are bound to work as class IV employee (daily wagers) and are bound to face odd situation against their dignity and honour and are bound to shut their lips as they are under fear of being kicked out by the administration of judiciary itself."

As far as relief 1 is concerned, it may be pointed out that one of us (A.K. Yog, J.) has already held in the case of Ram Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2004(4) E.S.C. 2002 that compassionate appointments under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are ultra vires to the Constitution. Hence, said relief is redundant.

As far as relief 2 is concerned, the petitioner will be well advised to approach the concerned authority and rake up the issue through proper forum . We have no doubt that writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be used as a platform for the said purpose.

With respect to relief 3, we may like only to express that a particular class IV employee, may be a daily wager or not, if anything is done which is against service condition, human dignity or otherwise offensive, there are adequate rules and statutory provisions. In any case, writ of present nature is not an appropriate remedy.  

In view of the above, writ petition has no merit and dismissed as not entertainable as Public Interest Litigation under Article 226, Constitution of India.

No order as to costs.

Dated: 5-1-2005/ALS


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.