Satendra Deo Sharma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Satendra Deo Sharma and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Aug 27, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491734

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/491734
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Aug 27, 2002
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32363 of 1993
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Sections 6N

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satendra Deo Sharma and ors.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Sections 6N
Cases Referred: Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani
Reported In: (2003)1UPLBEC327

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....labour court. apex court in range forest officer v. s.t. hadimani, 2002(93) flr 179, held that it is for the claimant workman to establish on basis of cogent evidence that he had actually worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding is termination and for this purpose he has to prove by leading evidence. mere statement on affidavit is not sufficient and even completion of 240 days service does not confer right of regularization unless the rules applicable or the terms of service in appointment letter provides so. actual working of 240 days in a year is only relevant for purpose of retrenchment under section 6-n of the up. industrial dispute act, 1947. the services of the petitioner were terminated in 1993. unless termination is set aside they cannot be regularized. the dispute regarding validity and correctness of the termination requires adducing oral and documentary evidence, which cannot be adduced before the court under article 226 of the constitution of india.5. counsel for the petitioner states that a direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner if made by him.6. in this view of the matter, this is not a fit case for exercise of powers under article 226 of the constitution of india. the writ petition has no force and is dismissed with direction that in case the petitioner makes a representation within a period of one month from today before respondent no. 2, it shall be decided by him by a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of 2 months thereafter from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

Rakesh Tiwari, J.

1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Admittedly, the petitioners were working as Casual Labours in the Workshop of Public Works Department, Provincial Division, Azamgarh. Their services have been terminated. They alleged that they have completed continuous services of more than 240 days and pray that order dated 1.6.93 terminating theirs services be quashed and the respondents be directed to regularize their services. In Para 11 of the writ petition it has been alleged that the sole purpose of retrenching the petitioners is to prevent the regularization their services and to recruit new personnel for the purpose as is evident from the directions issued by respondent No. 3 and contained in circular issued by respondent No. 2. In Para 13 of the writ petition it has been alleged that the petitioners have no other efficacious and alternate remedy except by way of this writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. This petition was filed on 6.9.93. No stay was granted to the petitioners.

4. The question as to whether the petitioners have actually worked for more than 240 days or not and as to whether there is any vacancy in the department or not has to be proved by leading evidence before the Labour Court. Apex Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, 2002(93) FLR 179, held that it is for the claimant workman to establish on basis of cogent evidence that he had actually worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding is termination and for this purpose he has to prove by leading evidence. Mere statement on affidavit is not sufficient and even completion of 240 days service does not confer right of regularization unless the rules applicable or the terms of service in appointment letter provides so. Actual working of 240 days in a year is only relevant for purpose of retrenchment under Section 6-N of the UP. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The services of the petitioner were terminated in 1993. Unless termination is set aside they cannot be regularized. The dispute regarding validity and correctness of the termination requires adducing oral and documentary evidence, which cannot be adduced before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Counsel for the petitioner states that a direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner if made by him.

6. In this view of the matter, this is not a fit case for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed with direction that in case the petitioner makes a representation within a period of one month from today before respondent No. 2, it shall be decided by him by a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of 2 months thereafter from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Satendra Deo Sharma and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Rakesh Tiwari, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Industrial...

Service