Partly allowed

Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2018SPLAD/381/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The special appeal, barred by limitation but condoned due to bonafide reasons, was preferred against a writ dismissal. The court distinguished the lower court's reliance on a contigent/substantive capacity precedent. Setting aside the writ judgment, the court directed the respondents to consider the appellant's case for salary if he worked the specific short-term session.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned judgment; direct respondents to consider the appellant's case for grant of salary if work was done against the 'Short Term Vacancy' during the concerned educational session.

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 381 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Vijay Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Krishan Tripathi,Pradeep Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 11 days.

¶6

Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant had justifiable reason to state that for a bonafide reason, he was prevented from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶7

To question correctness of the order dated 23rd May, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ- A no. 12462 of 2018, instant appeal is preferred.

¶8

Under the order aforesaid, learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ in light of the judgment given in the case of Dhrub Raj Barnwal And 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others (Writ-A No. 9003 of 2018) decided on 10th April, 2018.

¶9

The case of the appellant-petitioner is that learned Single Bench heard while disposing of the petition for writ in light of the judgment given in the case of Dhrub Raj Barnwal (supra) on the count that the appellant-petitioner was working as per contingencies referred under sub-Section 11 of Section 16 (E) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 whereas the Court in the case of Dhrub Raj Barnwal (supra) was dealing with the appointments made in substantive capacity.

¶10

On going through the judgment rendered in the case of Dhrub Raj Barnwal (supra) , we noticed that the same was pertaining to the employees working in substantive capacity whereas the appellant-petitioner was working against the vacancy of "Short Term Nature". Even by accepting this position, we are of considered opinion that no relief as prayed for could have been granted to the appellant-petitioner in view of the fact that such appointment could have been remained in currency only for the running educational session and not beyond that.

¶11

The educational session for which appointment was given to the appellant-petitioner has been expired long back, as such, no order now can be passed to reinstate the employee in service.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the appellant is entitled at least for the salary relating to the entire period of service contract and for the service already rendered by him.

¶13

In light of whatever stated above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by setting aside the judgment impugned with a direction to the respondents to consider case of the appellant-petitioner for grant of salary if the appellant-petitioner has worked even against the "Short Term Vacancy" during educational session concerned.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Rameez

¶15

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

Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Rai Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Rahul Mishra and 13 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 11 Ors.

Anirudha Singh Vs Dharmeshwar Upadhyay

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs Prayag Narain Dubey(P. N. Dubey)

Sanjeev Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bare Singh Vs State of U.P.