Dismissed

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Nanauta Saharanpur v. Moti Ram and 7 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018SPLAD/358/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special appeal, the Single Judge's direction to the appellant employer to consider respondents' regularization claims based on circulars dated 14.02.2002, 07.07.2006, and 31.07.2006 was upheld. The Court held that the respondents' cases, pending since 1989, must be adjudicated in light of the circulars, and subsequent regulations did not override the obligation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order dated 30.03.2018 directing the employer to consider respondents' regularization claims.

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Nanauta… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 358 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Nanauta Saharanpur Respondent :- Moti Ram And 7 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harishchandra Dubey

¶4

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

¶5

The appeal is barred by limitation from 29 days. Ignoring the same we have examined merits of the case.

¶6

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 30.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.48937 of 2016. By the impugned order learned Single Bench while accepting the petition for writ directed the employer to consider claim of the respondentspetitioners for regularization in service in accordance with Circulars dated 14.02.2002, 07.07.2006 and 31.07.2006 issued on behalf of the appellantrespondent.

¶7

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant while questioning correctness of the order impugned is that now the said circulars have already been framed in appointments on the post concerned which are required to be made by inherent service condition aforesaid and as such the direction given by the learned Single Bench to consider the case of the respondents-petitioners in the light of the Circulars is bad.

¶8

We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The Circulars on which the respondents-petitioners placed reliance were issued on 14.02.2002, 07.07.2006 and 31.07.2006. The cases of the respondentspetitioners, who were employed in the year 1989, were supposed to be considered in the light of the Circulars when those were issued, if there was inaction on the part of the employer not considering the case of the respondents-petitioners at the time of issuance of Circulars concerned then now at this stage it is not open to say that subsequent service regulations provided a specific process of regularization of service as such regulations are not applicable. Case of the respondents-petitioners is required to be considered as on 31.07.2006 the date on which last Circular pertaining regulations was issued.

¶9

In view of it, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

¶10

Order Date :- 11.7.2018

¶11

Asha

¶12

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

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Nanauta Saharanpur v. Moti Ram and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Nanauta Saharanpur v. Moti Ram and 7 Others

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

State of U.P. and Others Vs Phool Singh Pal

Sanjay Jaiswal Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bhawani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

M/S Saya Buildcon Consortium (P) Ltd. Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority and 2 Others

M/S Shiv and Company, Vs State of U P and 3 Others