Dismissed

Yogesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2018SPLA/692/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this special appeal challenging the rejection of regularization claims and subsqusequent discontinuation of a daily-wager. The court held that adverse reports rendered the applicant unfit for regularization withoutneedforan explanation, and his discontinuation was a termination simpliciter without punitive stigma, as one month's salary had been paid.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's special appeal was dismissed; order dated 5.7.2018 was upheld.

Yogesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 692 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Yogesh Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Varad Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is before us to examine the correctness of the order dated 5.7.2018 passed by the learned single Bench in Writ-A No. 48552 of 2005. Learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at the conclusion that non selection of the appellant petitioner in service is not punitive and, as such, the order dated 15.6.2005 discontinuing the appellant petitioner, as daily-wager, is justified.

¶6

In appeal the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellant petitioner is that a bare reading of the order dated 15.6.2005 indicates that the appellant petitioner was discontinued from service due to misconduct without adhering the principle of "audi alteram partem" and, as such, the same is not at all in accordance with law.

¶7

Having considered the arguments advanced and going through the record available we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced. The appellant petitioner entered in service of the respondents as a daily-wager somewhere in the year 1989. In the year 2003 he preferred a petition for writ i.e. writ petition no. 16342 of 2003 to have regularization in service. The petition aforesaid came to be disposed of on 2.3.2005 with a direction to the employer to consider the claim of the appellant petitioner with regard to his entitlement of the pay at the minimum of running pay-scale and also for regularization. The competent authority while examining the record of the appellant petitioner to execute the directions given by this Court noticed that by several reports the Zonal Officer made adverse observations with regard to services rendered by the appellant petitioner. It was also noticed that the appellant petitioner was in habit of misbehaving his superior officers and was also said to be involved in criminal cases. The reports given by the Zonal Officer are available on record and those were given at different times prior to disposal of the writ petition no. 16342 of 2003.

¶8

While considering the claim of the appellant petitioner competent committee was to assess fitness of the employee to be taken on regular cadre and while doing the reports given by

¶9

the Zonal Officers time to time were looked into and on the basis of those reports the appellant petitioner was unfit for regularization of service. For not giving appointment in regular cadre, no need was there to call upon the appellant petitioner to explain his conduct, specially in the circumstances that the candidature was rejected by a speaking and reasoned order. So far as the discontinuance of appellant petitioner from the service is concerned that is an issue different than consideration for regularization in service. Admittedly, the appellant petitioner was working on daily wage basis and, therefore, he had no right to continue in service if that was not required. It is also pertinent to note that before discontinuing the appellant petitioner from service salary of one month was given to him in lieu of notice period prescribed. The discontinuation from service is not casting any stigma and the same is termination simpliciter.

¶10

In entirety we do not find any just reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Bench. Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.8.2018 Shekhar

¶12

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.] [Govind Mathur, J.]

Yogesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buddh Sen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Prem Prakash Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission Vs Sanjay Sharma and 38 Ors.

Brajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Surya Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Amresh Chandra Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.