Dismissed

U.P. Pariyojna Prabandhak U.P. State Bridge Corporation and 4 Ors. v. Jai Ram Yadav

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2018SPLA/735/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In special appeal, the Court concluded that while an employee cannot hold a Panchayat office, this does not entitle termination of their service. Standing orders do not support automatic cessation for absence. The acquittal of the lower court ordering reinstatement was upheld without merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement of the respondent ordered by the Single Bench affirmed; appeal dismissed.

U.P. Pariyojna Prabandhak U.P. State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 735 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- U.P. Pariyojna Prabandhak U.P. State Bridge Corporation And 4 Ors. Respondent :- Jai Ram Yadav Counsel for Appellant :- Pranjal Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Shukla

¶5

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

¶6

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the judgment dated 05.07.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 23663 of 2007.

¶7

By the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench accepted the petition for writ declaring termination of the respondent-petitioner bad being effected without providing any opportunity of hearing.

¶8

The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that respondentpetitioner came to be employed as Store Munshi with the appellant w.e.f. 01.04.1988 and while holding the post aforesaid, he contested the election for the office of Gram Pradhan Shivpur, Block Beruwar Bari, District Ballia. On being elected as Gram Pradhan, the District Panchayat Raj Officer by letter dated 27.07.2001 conveyed to the U.P. Pariyojna Prabandhak, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited that the respondent-petitioner may be removed from service in light of Section 5-A (c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1947”). The provision aforesaid prescribes that “a person shall be disqualified for being chosen the Pradhan or a member of a Gram Panchayat, if he holds any office of profit under a State Government or the Central Government or a local authority, or a Board, Body or Corporation owned or controlled by a State Government or the Central Government.”

¶9

The appellant-respondent acting upon the communication dated 27.07.2001 under an order dated 19.12.2001 removed the

¶10

¶11

respondent-petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2001, he preferred a petition for writ, i.e., Writ-A No. 2132 of 2002 (Jai Ram Yadav Versus U.P. Pariyojna Prabandhak and others) that came to be disposed of on 15.09.2006 with a direction to the Authority competent to consider his case afresh by providing an opportunity of hearing within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the direction given, the Managing Director, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited vide an order dated 04.05.2007 rejected the contentions of the respondent-petitioner raised in the representation submitted by him. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2007, the respondentpetitioner preferred a petition for writ that came to be accepted under the judgment impugned. Learned Single Bench while accepting the petition for writ arrived at the conclusion that applicable standing orders do not entitle the respondent-Managing Director to remove a workman from service without providing a reasonable opportunity for defence.

¶12

In appeal, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellantCorporation is that the respondent-petitioner admittedly contested election for an office in Panchayat Raj Institution and, as such, on being elected to office concerned, he was not entitled to continue in service.

¶13

On going through the record and also after considering the arguments advanced, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

¶14

True it is, respondent-petitioner contested election for Panchayat Raj Institution and was also elected as Pradhan but learned counsel for the appellant utterly failed to satisfy us with the support of any provision that an employee of the appellant-Corporation is prevented from contesting such election.

¶15

The sole reliance is placed upon the provisions of Section 5-A (c) of the Act, 1947, according to which, a person shall be disqualified for

¶16

¶17

being chosen the Pradhan or a member of a Gram Pradhan, if he holds any office of profit under a State Government or the Central Government or a local authority, or a Board, Body or Corporation owned or controlled by a State Government or the Central Government. The provision aforesaid bars for holding an office in Panchayat Raj Institution by the employees of the Institutions referred.

¶18

In view of Section 5-A (c) of the Act, 1947, the respondent-petitioner was not qualified to hold the office of Pradhan but in no manner on basis of provision aforesaid, it can be inferred that he was not entitled or eligible to hold the post of Store Munshi with the Corporation. No action could have been taken against the respondent-petitioner by invoking the powers under Section 5-A (c) of the Act, 1947.

¶19

In view of whatever stated above, we are of considered opinion that learned Single Bench rightly accepted the petition for writ by setting aside the order of removal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant also tried to satisfy us about the correctness of the order removing the respondent-petitioner from service by referring the standing orders – L-2-3 and L-2-8. The standing orders aforesaid are as follows:-

¶21

L-2-3 Any workman who desired to obtain leave of absence shall apply to the sanctioning authority and shall not avail of the same before it is actually sanctioned and he has handed over his charge, if any.

¶22

L-2-8 In case of leave on medical grounds, a workman shall submit a certificate from the medical officer of the corporation or a government doctor or registered medical practitioner.”

¶23

The standing orders aforesaid prescribe a mode to avail leave. The orders nowhere convey that if an employee remains absent from duties without having leave as per the orders aforesaid then his service shall automatically ceased or there is no need to hold any enquiry for unauthorized absence.

¶24

¶25

On repeated asking, learned counsel failed to point out any provision under the applicable standing orders for automatic cessation of service on remaining absent from duties unauthorizedly. Beside that, it would also be appropriate to state that the removal of the respondent-petitioner was not made by the employer on the count of unauthorized absence but for holding the post of Gram Pradhan. For the reasons supplied, the second contention too is not sustainable.

¶26

In entirety, the appeal is bereft of merit, hence dismissed. Order Date :- 16.8.2018 Shubham

¶27

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

U.P. Pariyojna Prabandhak U.P. State Bridge Corporation and 4 Ors. v. Jai Ram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. Pariyojna Prabandhak U.P. State Bridge Corporation and 4 Ors. v. Jai Ram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Chandra and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Kumar Vs District Inspector of Schools and Another

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Prasad Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Jahan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Kavita Devi Vs Dist. Magistrate Bulandshahr and 3 Ors.