Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARUN RASHID versus COMMISSIONER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harun Rashid v. Commissioner - WRIT - A No. 21546 of 2000 [2004] RD-AH 1754 (20 December 2004)

 

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

Reserved

                         W.P. No. 21546 of 2000.

Harun Rashid                                                            Petitioner.

                                                 Vs.

Commissioner and Administrator,

Ram Ganga Command Project,

Pandu Nagar, Kanpur Nagar.                                    Respondent.

                       

                                                   ***************

Hon. Vikram Nath,J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.7.1991 passed by the Commissioner and Administrator, Ram Ganga Command Project Pandu Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the resignation letter of the petitioner dated 30.6.91 was accepted w.e.f. 31.7.1991. It is further directed against the order dated 17.3.2000 also passed by the Commissioner and Administrator, Ram Ganga Command Project, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, where by representation of the petitioner has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to treat the service of petitioner uninterrupted ignoring letter of the resignation letter and to regularize the service of the petitioner on class IV post with all consequential benefits.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially selected on class IV post in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940, after facing selection. He was appointed by order dated 24.11.1990 issued by the Commissioner and Administrator, Ram Ganga Command Project, Pandu nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner thereafter joined and started working. It is alleged that a letter of resignation was got prepared by the establishment clerk of the respondent project and in which it was mentioned that on account of injury sustained by him in his hand and also because of certain domestic problems he was not interested in carrying on the job, therefore, he may be allowed to resign and in future when he recovers he may be taken back on service. The said resignation letter was accepted by order of the Commissioner of the Project dated 31.7.1991. The petitioner continued to work till 31.8.91 and when he was asked to stop coming, he immediately replied vide his representation dated 1.9.1991 alleging therein that he had already applied on 20.7.1991 for withdrawal of his resignation and he bona fide thought that since the resignation letter had not been accepted till then, he would be allowed to continue. The said representation was pending. However, on the recommendation-dated 27.1.1992, the Administrator passed an order dated 1.2.1992 to take back the petitioner on service on fixed monthly salary of Rs. 700/- for the time being. The petitioner pursuant to the said order started working. However, he continued to agitate for withdrawl of the acceptance of the resignation and for fitting him in continuous service.

The petitioner continued to make representation for giving regular service and pay scale, but the respondent did not pay any heed. The petitioner thereafter, filed writ petition before this Court, being CMWP No. 40048 of 1999, which was disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner and Administrator of the Project to examine the circumstances in issuing the resignation letter and to pass speaking orders within two months. The petitioner produced certified copy of the order of the High Court and pursuant to the order dated 17.3.2000, passed by the Commissioner and the Administrator of the project in which it has been held that the resignation has been rightly accepted and the alleged letter dated 20.7.1991 was never filed and was an after thought, accordingly, the representation dated 1.91991 stood rejected. By means of the writ petition both the orders rejecting the representation and accepting the resignation letter are under challenged.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Ram Ganga Command Project. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

I have heard Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent project.

It has been submitted by Sri B.N.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been misguided and that he never intended to resign from service, he only wanted to apply for leave on account of injury sustained in his hand. The establishment clerk of the project had manipulated and manufactured the resignation letter from the petitioner. It is submitted that before the resignation letter was accepted on 31 July 91, the petitioner had already applied for withdrawl on 20 July 1991 and, therefore, the resignation having become ineffective, could not have been accepted after the petitioner had withdrawn it.

Sri P.S.Baghel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent has submitted that resignation letter was written in the own hand writing of the petitioner. It was not the case of the petitioner that he had merely signed some written and some blank papers and, therefore, he having himself written a letter in his own hand writing that he wants to resign, clearly indicates the intention of the petitioner to resign. The contention of the petitioner that the establishment clerk prepared the resignation letter and forced the petitioner to sign the resignation letter cannot be sustained.

It is further submitted by Sri P.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent that the letter dated 20.7.1991 alleged to be submitted for withdrawl of resignation was in fact never submitted.  Photocopy of the letter has been filed along with petition, as Annexure 4 does not bear any endorsement or receipt of the office of the respondent project or any officer of the Project. The said letter was an after thought and has been manufactured by the petitioner at the time of submitting his representation on 1.9.1991. Sri Baghel has further contended that taking sympathetic view the petitioner has already been taken back on duty on fixed pay of Rs. 700/- per month w.e.f 1.2.1992.

I have examined the record as well as considered rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. The contention of the petitioner that the resignation letter was submitted to the Engineer and he has submitted report, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the letter of resignation dated 30.6.1991 is in own hand writing of the petitioner. The second contention of the petitioner that he had withdrawn his resignation also cannot be accepted for the reason that such withdrawl does not find place in the record of the respondent. These disputed question of fact cannot be examined by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has next urged that the petitioner is being exploited and is being paid merely Rs. 700/- per month, which, in fact, does not even match the minimum wages. The petitioner would be entitled to regular pay scale and to be regularized in service. The respondents have admitted in the counter affidavit that he has been re engaged and is being paid at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month. This amount as salary cannot be justified in any manner. Admittedly the petitioner is working since 1.2.1992 on the fixed pay scale of Rs. 700/- per month, which is much less then even the minimum wages fixed for a daily wager of class IV. Having employed the petitioner from 1.2.1992 and continuing in service even today, the obligation of the respondent project being a government project, is to ensure that at least minimum wages admissible under law are paid to the petitioner and in case of any availability of vacancy for regularizing the appointment of the petitioner the same may also be considered in view of the long service of 12 years.

In view of the above, the writ petition partly succeeds. The relief claimed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 31.7.1991 and 17.3.2000 is rejected. The respondents are directed to give the minimum wages admissible under law to the petitioner form the date of his appointment and also considered his case for regularization subject to the availability of vacancies in accordance with law keeping in view the fact that he has been continuously working for the last more than 12 years and there is need of his service.

Dated:- 20.12.2004

v.k.updh. (v-23)


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.