Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and ors. Vs. State Public Services Tribunal and ors.

Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and ors. vs State Public Services Tribunal and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Nov 25, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/487303

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/487303
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 25, 2003
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 4002 of 2000
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 168; [S.B. Sinha & H.S. Bedi, JJ ] Determination of compensation Meaning of income of victim Held, The term income has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question n...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and ors.

Advocate Dilip Gupta, Adv.

Respondent

State Public Services Tribunal and ors.

Advocate D.P. Singh, S.C.

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Dr. Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan
Reported In: (2004)1UPLBEC766

Excerpt

.....beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - anju rani had been engaged initially on daily wage basis and subsequently without any advertisement or selection she was appointed on temporary/ad hoc basis for a period of three months by means of the order dated 30.12.1995. in the said order, it was mentioned clearly that the services was purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without any reason or notice. 6. it is well settled that a temporary appointee has no right to the post vide kaushal kishore v. we, therefore, fail to understand as to how the tribunal could have allowed the petition of the respondent no......by km. anju rani, copy of which is annexure-6 to the writ petition.5. in para 9 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that a written statement of the petitioner was filed before the tribunal. it is stated that respondent no. 2 km. anju rani had been engaged initially on daily wage basis and subsequently without any advertisement or selection she was appointed on temporary/ad hoc basis for a period of three months by means of the order dated 30.12.1995. in the said order, it was mentioned clearly that the services was purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without any reason or notice. it is further stated that there was no vacant post of clerk duly sanctioned by the government. hence, km. anju rani has no right to continue.6. it is well settled that a temporary appointee has no right to the post vide kaushal kishore v. state of u. p., 1991 (1) awc 651 (sc). this decision has been followed by several subsequent decisions vide commissioner, food and civil supplies v. prakash chandra saxena, (1994) 5 scc 177 ; triveni shanker saxena v. state of u. p., air 1992 sc 496 ; madhya pradesh hasta shilpa vikas nigam ltd. v. devendra kumar jain, (1995) 1 scc 638 and dr. chanchal goyal v. state of rajasthan, 2003 (2) sccd 864 : (2003) 3 scc 485, etc. we, therefore, fail to understand as to how the tribunal could have allowed the petition of the respondent no. 2 since respondent no. 2 was appointed on purely temporary/ad hoc basis for three months only by order dated 30.12.1995 and the service of respondent no. 2 was extended by the secretary again for three months at a time. in our opinion, this will not give respondent no. 2 any right to the post.7. for the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.10.1999 passed by the tribunal is set aside.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. None has appeared for the respondent No. 2 although, Sri Dev Pratap Singh, advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and his name has been shown in the cause list.

3. The facts of the case have been set out in the order dated 26.10.1999 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. It appears that the respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of clerk-cum-typist on daily wage basis w.e.f. 12.9.1994 in the service of the petitioner, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura. As stated in para 3 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 Km. Anju Rani submitted an application dated 26.12.1995 to the Secretary/Vice Chairman of the Development Authority seeking appointment to the post of Clerk. Without any advertisement or selection and merely on the aforesaid application submitted to the petitioner, an order dated 30.12.1995 was issued by the Secretary of the petitioner (copy of this is Annexure-2 to the writ petition). A perusal of the order shows that it gives appointment to the respondent No. 2 only for three months on ad hoc basis. The order further states that the appointment is purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without any notice.

4. The aforesaid order of appointment was only for a period of three months on purely ad hoc basis and would have expired on 31,3.1996. However, the respondent No. 2 was allowed to continue for further three months periods on several occasions as stated in paras 5 and 6 to the writ petition. The last appointment of three months expired on 30.6.1998 and in the absence of any further grant of extension, the petitioner was not permitted to work from 1.7.1998. Hence, the respondent No. 2 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Petitioner filed a reply copy of which is Annexure-5 and rejoinder-affidavit was also filed by Km. Anju Rani, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

5. In para 9 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that a written statement of the petitioner was filed before the Tribunal. It is stated that respondent No. 2 Km. Anju Rani had been engaged initially on daily wage basis and subsequently without any advertisement or selection she was appointed on temporary/ad hoc basis for a period of three months by means of the order dated 30.12.1995. In the said order, it was mentioned clearly that the services was purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without any reason or notice. It is further stated that there was no vacant post of clerk duly sanctioned by the Government. Hence, Km. Anju Rani has no right to continue.

6. It is well settled that a temporary appointee has no right to the post vide Kaushal Kishore v. State of U. P., 1991 (1) AWC 651 (SC). This decision has been followed by several subsequent decisions vide Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies v. Prakash Chandra Saxena, (1994) 5 SCC 177 ; Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State of U. P., AIR 1992 SC 496 ; Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain, (1995) 1 SCC 638 and Dr. Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (2) SCCD 864 : (2003) 3 SCC 485, etc. We, therefore, fail to understand as to how the Tribunal could have allowed the petition of the respondent No. 2 since respondent No. 2 was appointed on purely temporary/ad hoc basis for three months only by order dated 30.12.1995 and the service of respondent No. 2 was extended by the Secretary again for three months at a time. In our opinion, this will not give respondent No. 2 any right to the post.

7. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.10.1999 passed by the Tribunal is set aside.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and ors. vs State Pub... Same Subject Service Same Judge M. Katju and ;Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.

Service