Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3532
orderi.m. quddusi, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. by means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 24.1.2000, passed by opposite party no. 3, i.e., the principal, government industrial training institute, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated under rule 8 of the u. p. regularisation of daily wages appointment on group 'c posts (outside the purview of the uttar pradesh public service commission) rules, 1998.3. the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as instructor, mechanical draftsman in the government industrial training institute, sewaar, district rampur w.e.f. 12.12.1990 and he continued as such with some breaks till the date of coming into force of the u. p. regularisation of daily wages appointment on group 'c posts (outside the purview of the uttar pradesh public service commission) rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the regularisation rules of 1998', in which it was provided that the persons who were working on daily wage basis since 29th june, 1991, were liable to be regularised against the group 'c posts, but the petitioner's regularisation was not considered. as such, he filed w.p. no. 1481 (s/s) of 1995, in which a direction was issued to consider his regularisation vide order dated 6.7.1999, in pursuance of which a selection committee was constituted, which after considering the regularisation of the petitioner found .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC985
jagdish bhalla, j.1. this writ petition is directed against the judgment and order, dated 3.6.2003, passed by the central administrative tribunal, lucknow in o.a. no. 41 of 2003, whereby the petitioners have been directed to consider the respondent no. 1 for his appointment on the post of deputy director general military farms (hereinafter referred to as the ddgmf) holding him to be eligible and competent to hold the said post.2. brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition, are stated herein below :3. according to learned counsel, the respondent no. 1 is an officer belonging to civilian cadre and is presently posted as director military farms, headquarters central command, lucknow. initially the first respondent was appointed on the post of group 'b' officer as farm officer in the military farm organisation in the year 1974 after being selected through union public service commission. thereafter the first respondent was promoted to the post of deputy assistant director military farms (group b) in the year 1981 and latter to the post of assistant director military farm (group a) in the year 1986. subsequently, the first respondent was promoted to the post of deputy director in the year 1994. in 1996, the post of deputy director was re-designated as director military farms and since then he is working on the said post as director military farms.4. on 20.5.1960, the government of india took a policy decision to bifurcate remount, veterinary and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(2)AWC1417
s.r. singh, j.1. process for recruitment on 17 posts of kanistha lipik (junior clerk) in the establishment of collectorate, jyotiba phule nagar was initiated vide advertisement dated august 10, 1998. the petitioner who worked as seasonal assistant vasil baqi navis for a number of years filed a writ petition being ramesh chand rajput v. state of u. p. and others, civil misc. writ petition no. 34697 of 1998, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the proposed examination for appointment on the post of kanishtha lipik (junior clerk), inter alia, on the ground that 50% of the vacancies in the cadre of junior clerk ought to be filled from amongst seasonal assistant vasil baqi navis working under the collectorate. reliance was placed for the petitioner on certain decisions of this court in which itwas provided that 50% vacancies in the posts of assistant vasil baqi navis ought to be filled from amongst seasonal assistant vasil baqi navis. on behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the advertisement was not in respect of the recruitment of assistant vasil baqi navis but it related to recruitment to the post of junior clerks in the collectorate. a question arose as to whether the cadre of junior clerk as visualised by the u. p. district offices (collectorate) ministerial service rules, 1980, is the same as that of assistant vasil baqi navis. in view of the nature of controversy raised therein, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction upon .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)1UPLBEC331
devi prasad singh, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties. since these bunch of writ petitions involves common question of law and facts, i proceed to decide these writ petitions by passing a present common judgment. the controversy under the present bunch of writ petitions relates to transfer of petitioner employees by the impugned order to state of uttaranchal in pursuance to provision contained in u.p. reorganization act, 2000 (act no. 29 of 2000) (hereinafter referred as act). the act was promulgated by parliament on 25th august, 2000 and it was notified in the official gazette on 9.11.2000 which is the 'appointed day' for the purpose of bifurcation of state of u.p. into two states, other one is state of uttaranchal.2. in the state of u.p. the department of horticulture and food processing was created sometime in the year 1974. admittedly, petitioners were appointed on the different post of group 2 and group 1 in the hill area of state of u.p. at that time there was only one horticulture department in the state of u.p. however, by government order dated 3.2.1984 the directorate of horticulture hill region and directorate of plain region merged into one directorate. thereafter, again by means of another government order dated 4.9.1989 the state government had created two separate directorate for hill region as well as plain region know as 'directorate of horticulture and food utilisation (hill u.p.)' which was having its head office at chhaupati ranikhet (now within .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1999)1UPLBEC140
s.r. singh, j.1. the question that stems for consideration in these petitions listed for admission under the heading 'ig registration bunch, is as to whether the petitioners were entitled to be regularised in service as registration clerk qua the directions given by the supreme court in khagesh kumar and ors. v. inspector general of registration, u.p. and ors. jt 1995 (7) sc 542 : (1996) 1 uplbec 23 (sc). in some of the writ petitions, a further question has been brought to bear that in any case the petitioners were entitled to continue on daily wages till regular selections were made in the light of the directions given by the apex court in i.g. reg v. avdhesh kumar jt 1996 (5) sc 365 : (1996) 3 uplbec 1744 (sc). since the petitions are knit together by reason of common question of law being involved therein and also by reason of the facts being identical these petitions were grouped together and heard accordingly for a convenient disposal by a common judgment.2. it brooks no dispute that the petitioners were appointed registration clerk on daily wages on the basis of sanction given by the governor each year subject to the postulates that the appointments would, in no case, exceed three years during the course of a financial year. earlier when the matter came up before this court at the instance of a large number of daily rated registration clerks, seeking regularisatioin, the high court held that daly rated employees were not entitled to consideration for regularisation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3665(All)
tarun agarwala, j.1. since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are common. the same are being decided together by a comman judgment, for facility, the facts in the wait petition of bhuvendra kumar is begin taken into consideration. the petitioner is a consolidation lekhpal and has been transferred by an order dated 30.6.2005 by the consolidation commissioner, lucknow to another place outside the district.2. the submission of the learned counsel for the various petitioners is, that the consolidation commissioner had no power to transfer the petitioners outside the district the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no provision for transfer of a consolidation, lekhpal under the u.p. consolidation lekhpals, services rules, 1978 ( hereinafter referred to as the rules of 1978). it was further submitted that since rule 2 of the aforesaid service rules of 1978 provides that the status of a consolidation lekhpal would be that of a group 'd' post, therefore, the group 'd' employees service rules 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the rules, 1985). would be applicable to she case of the petitioners and even these rules of 1985 do not provide for any provision for a transfer of an employee on a group 'd' post to any place outside the district. the learned counsels. for the petitioners submitted that the work performed by the petitioners as a consolidation lekhpal is similar to that performed by a lekhpal appointed under the u.p. land revenue act, 1901 ( .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2002)3UPLBEC2195
a.k. yog, j. 1. the undisputed facts relevant for the purpose of deciding controversy in the present writ petition are as follows :sayed mohammad mahfooz, the petitioner had worked as assistant accountant from 1.12.1994 to 31.3.1998 in hamirpur, dugdh utpadak sahkari sangh limited, called the sahkari sangh vide appointment letter dated november 26, 1994/annexure 2 to the petition in connection with central sector yojana for one year on contract basis at a consolidated salary of rs. 2,000/- per month. the appointment letter also categorically mentioned that appointment was to come to an end automatically after expiry of one year the appointment was absolutely temporary and services were liable to be determined any time on one month' notice; petitioner has filed certificate, in proof of the fact that he did work as assistant account in the said sahkari sangh w.e.f., 1.12.1994 to 31.3.1998; the petitioner admittedly worked as an employee of the said sahkari sangh up to 31.3.1998/annexure 3 to the writ petition; petitioner also filed certificate dated 26.5.1998/annexure 4 to the writ petition issued by the manager of the sahkari sangh indicating his period of working as aforementioned in the sahkari sangh and further adding that petitioner was a 'retrenched employee'; initially an advertisement was issued on 3.11.1997 providing certain age restrictions with reference to the cut of date as 1.7.1997; petitioner applied within the prescribed age limit; the selection process was not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC669; [2005(105)FLR13]; (2005)2UPLBEC1580
vineet saran, j.1. petitioners were initially engaged on temporary basis in the year 1986 and have been regularised on the post of pump operators vide separate orders dated 4.11,1996, of the nagar nigam, gorakhpur. by the impugned order dated 9.9.2003, the respondent no. 5 chandra bhushan mani has been regularised on the post of fitter and respondent no. 6 ram gati has been regularised on the post of meter mechanic in the nagar nigam, gorakhpur. the petitioners submit that since the said two posts of fitter and meter mechanic, on which respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been regularised, are of higher grade, they ought to have been promoted on the said posts. hence the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 9.9.2003 whereby respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been regularised on the post of fitter and meter mechanic, and have also prayed for being promoted to the same post from the post of pump operators on which they are working.2. having heard sri h.p. misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as learned standing counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, sri satish madhyan for nagar nigam-authorities respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and sri umesh vats for private-respondent nos. 5 and 6 and on perusal of record and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the petitioners are not entitled to the prayers made in this writ petition.3. it is not disputed that the petitioners were initially engaged on temporary basis and the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(4)AWC2755; [2001(91)FLR906]; (2001)3UPLBEC2652
r.k. agrawal, j. 1. these two special appeals have been filed by the appellant-writ petitioners against a common judgment and order dated 22.1.1998 passed by the learned single judge whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants-writ petitioners have been dismissed. 2. we have heard shri ashok khare, learned senior counsel assisted by shri p.n. ojha on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioners in both the special appeals and shri ran vijay singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. briefly stated facts giving rise to the present special appeals are that the appellant-writ petitioners joined as class iv employees on different class iv posts, such as ward boys, sweeper-cum-chaukidars and chaukidar-cum-sweepers at the places of their posting in the month of june, 1996 in pursuance of the different orders of appointment dated 7.6.1996 passed by dr. yashpal singh. the then chief medical officer, padrauna, now kushinagar. when they were not getting their salary. sadiq ali and 7 others filed civil misc. writ petition no. 34448 of 1996 seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the performance of their duties on the posts on which they have been appointed, and the respondents be directed to pay regular monthly salaries to them along with arrears. during the pendency of the writ petition, their appointments were cancelled vide order dated 27.3.1997 passed by the state government as communicated by orders dated 9/10.4.1997 by the chief .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(3)AWC1821
orderm. katju, j.1. this writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 26,12.2002 and 10.1.2003, annexures-10 and 12 to the writ petition. the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus that he should be considered for promotion as chief engineer.2. heard learned counsels for the parties.3. the petitioner is working as superintending engineer, rural engineering service, u. p. the service rules in this connection are the u. p. rural engineers (group a) service rules, 1991, copy of which is annexure-1 to the writ petition. in these rules for appointment as superintending engineer, total number of 15 years of service are required which includes six years service as executive engineer.4. the petitioner has alleged that throughout his career, he was senior to the respondent no. 3 uma shanker. the respondents do not seriously dispute this fact. for selection as assistant engineer, and then as executive engineer on both occasions, the petitioner was placed higher in the select list than the respondent no. 3. for selection as superintending engineer also, he was placed higher than the respondent no. 3 vide paragraph 4 (iii) of the writ petition. the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 both belong to the s.c. category.5. as stated in paragraph 9 of the petition, the d.p.c. met for selection on the post of superintending engineer. both petitioner and the respondent no. 3 were considered by the d.p.c. but since an enquiry was pending against the petitioner, the sealed .....
Tag this Judgment!