Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABU NANDAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Babu Nandan Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 16861 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 12459 (28 July 2006)

 

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. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in view of G.Os. dated 9.7.1998 and 21.12.2001, Annexures- 7 & 8 to the writ petition.  

The petitioner is alleged to have been given an appointment on daily wages in the forest department. The petitioner states that he is continuously working without any interruption but the services of the petitioner have not been regularized. In the counter affidavit continuous working of the petitioner has been denied and it has been stated that the petitioner has worked up to 1998. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner a certificate has been annexed showing therein that the petitioner is working. This controversy has taken attention of this Court and the same has been finalized by the Apex Court in the judgment report in 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1595, State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal and others. The apex Court has laid down certain criteria for the purpose of consideration of the daily wage employees who are working in the forest department.

The writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.2 to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the law laid down in the case of Putti Lal (Supra) and if the petitioner fulfils the required criteria laid down in the aforesaid judgment, his case may be considered and appropriate orders be passed.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

28.7.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.No.16861 of 2003


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.