Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SHAKUNTALA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Shakuntala Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 3643 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1479 (19 January 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. ARUN TANDON, J.

Petitioner who was appointed as Gram Vikas Adhikari (Mahila) and was posted in Development Block Karanja Kalan.

That by means of the order dated 7.6.2001 passed by the Zila Gram Vikas Abhikaran, Jaunpur, the petitioner was attached to the said Adhikaran at Jaunpur and was required to discharge duties as are mentioned in the order dated 7.1.2001 which  included the charge of the show room.  The said attachment of the petitioner has been cancelled by means of the order dated 3.12.2005 and the petitioner has been directed to hand over charge of the stocks of the show room within three days.  

On the same date another order has been issued by the Zila Gram Vikas Abhikaran, Jaunpur to the effect that since the petitioner has not furnished the details of the stocks available in the show room despite the notice of the Abhikaran dated 17.11.2005,  payment of salary to the petitioner may not be effected so long as the charge of the show room is not handed over.  Both of these orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

In the opinion of the Court the first order dated 3.11.2005 whereby the attachment of the petitioner to Gram Vikas Abhikaran, Jaunpur has been cancelled does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as petitioner being posted as Gram Vikas Adhikari(Mahila) in Vikas Khand Karanjay cannot insist upon her attachment being continued at Abhikaran she has only been asked to discharge her duties at her place of posting.  There is no illegality in the order so passed.

So far as the order dated 3.9.2005 is concerned since the details of the  stocks which were available in the show room has not been furnished by the petitioner despite a letter in writing, respondent authorities have rightly directed witholding of salary.  manner.  However, if the petitioner insists that the charge of the show room was handed over to some other authority and further since she has already made a representation in that regard before respondent no. 2 Ayukta, Gramya Vikas, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow it would be appropriate that the respondent no. 2 may consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by means of a reasoned speaking order within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before respondent no. 2.  

Writ petition stands dismissed subject to the observations made.

Dated: 19.1.2006

V.R./3643/06


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.