Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3118
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector on 28th August, 1961. He was promoted to group II as Soil Conservation Inspector on 1st November, 1977. Thereafter on 12th July, 1978, he was confirmed on the post of Soil Conservation Inspector.3. For the years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the petitioner was communicated adverse entry dated 27.7.1981 by Additional Agriculture Director (Administration) for not taking any interest in work, not achieving the target and for remaining on leave. Against this entry, the petitioner filed a representation, which was decided on 8th January. 1992. For the year 1984-85, the petitioner was again communicated adverse entry by the Soil Conservation Officer. Tehri Garhwal on 17th October, 1985, about his doubtful integrity for obliterating the entries in the measurement book by deliberately pouring ink. Against this entry also, the petitioner filed arepresentati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3121
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 21.1.1958 as class IVemployee in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. On 19.11.1958 he was appointed as Vaccinator. He being the senior most vaccinator was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Superintendent Vaccination by Mukhya Nagar Adhikari on 6.12.1989 and was confirmed on the said post on 16.6.1990. He is working on the said post till then. It is alleged by the petitioner that he is having dual charge of Assistant Superintendent Vaccination and Supervisor of birth and death registration of entire city of Kanpur. 3. It is averred that there is only one post of Assistant Superintendent Vaccination in Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. According to the petitioner, this post is supervisory post having the duty to supervise the work of more than 50 Wards of Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. The contention of the petitioner is that after enforcement of new pay scale, the State of U. P. issued an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3125; [2001(90)FLR124]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner was appointed as constable in P.A.C. and join the post on 1.11.1986. Before being appointed, the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 5.8.1986 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) to the effect that he was never involved in any criminal case, etc. This affidavit was sworn before the Notary. 3. Under Section 3 of the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1948, members of P.A.C. are deemed as police officials. The powers privileges, liabilities, penalties, punishment and protection as police officer duly enrolled is subject to by virtue of Police Act, 1861 and the rules and regularizations framed therein are applicable. 4. In paragraph 541 of the police regulations, it is provided that a recruit will be on probation for a period of two years from the date hebegins to officiate in a clear vacancy except in certain circumstances. At the end of the probationary period, the work and conduct of the recruit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3139
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter alia, challenging the orders dated 15.6.2002 and 1.7.2002 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexures-38 and 40 to the writ petition, respectively). 2. It appears that the petitioner was working on the post of Sugar Godown Keeper in the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bisalpur, Pilibhit. On account of certain charges against him a first information report under Section 380, I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner on 7.6.1999. a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 3. It further appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 9.6.1999. a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. 4. Thereafter, it appears that the charge-sheet dated 30.6.1999, was issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition. After holding enquiry, it appears 'that' the enqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3143; (2003)1UPLBEC160
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order of termination dated 5.12.1991, passed by the D.I.O.S., Bareilly. 3. The relief claimed by the petitioner is that the Impugned order dated 5.12.1991 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) be quashed. It has further been prayed that a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to thepetitioner as long he works in the temporary vacancy be issued. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in temporary vacancy in C.T. grade in Kishan Inter College, Faridpur, Bareilly, by the resolution of the Committee of the Management dated 10.7.1991. Copy of the appointment letter has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the D.I.O.S. has granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 1.8.1991 and he had received salary for the months of A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3174
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire records of the revision.2. This civil revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.12.1989 passed by the Third Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur in Misc. Case No. 101 of 1985. By the impugned order, the application of the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person has been allowed and the Original Suit No. 19 of 1990 has been registered. The relief sought in this revision is to set aside the order dated 2.12.1989 and to dismiss the application of the plaintiff to sue person as an indigent. 3. It appears from the record of the civil revision that the court below has taken all the materials into consideration while declaring the plaintiff-opposite party as an indigent person by permitting him to file the suit. A categorical finding of fact has been recorded that the plaintiff-opposite party has no property of more than Rs. 1,000 and further that there is no material to show as to how much is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3186
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs : (a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioners in the scale of Rs. 950-1,500 along with D.A., H.R.A., C.C.A., etc. which is being paid to the regular clerk/typists in the office of the respondents ; (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners on the post of clerk/typist in the office of respondent No. 2 ; (c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make paymentof difference of salary for which the petitioners are entitled in law in the scale of Rs. 950-1,500 plus other allowances and that of Rs. 30 per day, which is being paid to the petitioners at present along with arrears ; (d) a writ, order or direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3197
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to issue tender document to the petitioner and not to finalise the tender in question till the tender of the petitioner is also considered.3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The main object of the Company is catering and hotel business. The respondent Indian Oil Corporation issued advertisement in the news paper Amar Ujala dated 22.7.2002, inviting tenders, for running a snacks canteen in Mathura Refinery. True copy of the advertisement is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner obtained the relevant information in this connection from the web site. True copy of the web site information is Annexures-2 and 3. It is alleged in para 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner fulfils the requisite requirements, and hence it applied for issuing tender documents form on 31.7.2002. Along with the application, the petitioner also sen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3254
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. These bunches of 23 appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 9th October, 1995, passed by the Additional District Judge, Mirzapur allowing appeals, which were filed againstJudgment and order dated 16.10.1982 of the Munsif, Dudhi, Mirzapur.2. Twenty three suits were filed by the plaintiffs-appellants praying for declaration that they are owners of the sites on which their shops were situated since long and the defendants Hindustan Aluminium Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Hindalco) is neither its owner nor in possession of the land, hence it be restrained by permanent injunction from evicting them from the sites of their shops or interfering in their possession. In some of the suits, plaintiffs sought declaration that they were owners of the sites and the defendant Corporation had no concern with it and that defendant Hindalco be restrained from interfering in their possession in any way.3. The trial court decreed the suits, against which 23 civil appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR583]; (2003)ILLJ260All; (2002)3UPLBEC2318
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. Impugned herein is the order dated November 3, 1987 passed by the District Judge Gorakhpur thereby rejecting the application preferred under Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short the Act). The quintessence of what has been held by the District Judge is that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act cannot be called in aid for application to Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 2. Heard Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. The questions that loom before the Court for determination are two fold: (1) whether the Payment of Wages Act is a complete Code in itself in the matter of limitation or it is mere adjunct to supplement Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act for purposes of limitation; and (2) whether Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act can be called in aid to apply to p...
Tag this Judgment!