Disposed

Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2018SPLAD/611/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, this Special Defective Appeal, though barred by limitation, was examined on merits. The High Court observed the lack of concrete evidence establishing re-engagement but disposed of the appeal by keeping the appellant at liberty to seek appropriate remedies elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Appellant kept at liberty to avail appropriate remedy to claim dues by submitting representation to competent authority.

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 611 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Hans Pratap Singh 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 79 days. Ignoring the same we have looked into merits of the case.

¶6

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 25.5.2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ-A No. 12640 of 2018.

¶7

In brief factual matrix of the case is that appellant petitioner came to be appointed as Gram Rojgar Sewak on 3.1.2007 for a period of one year. It appears that the term of his appointment is extended and ultimately on 23.8.2011 he was discontinued from service on lodging a FIR relating to some alleged offence. A final report in the matter aforesaid was submitted before the competent court on 31.12.2011. Subsequent thereto the Block Development Officer concerned under letter dated 29.2.2016 directed the Gram Pradhan to allow the appellant petitioner to join the duties and to submit a report in that regard. As per the appellant petitioner he joined the service on 10.3.2016 but no payment of honorarium has been made. It is also alleged that the honorarium for the period prior to discontinuation from service too has not been paid. Aggrieved by the same appellant petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of a petition for writ. Learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ aforesaid by arriving at the conclusion that no material evidence is available on record that establishes the fact stated in petition for writ and no order of re-engagement too is placed on record.

¶8

In appeal it is stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant petitioner that as a matter of fact the appellant petitioner was reinstated in service on basis of letter dated 29.2.2016 addressed to Gram Pradhan by Block Development Officer concerned and, as such, there was no occasion for giving any fresh order of re-engagement.

¶9

Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the appellant petitioner was working as Gram Rojgar Sewak for a fixed term and his reengagement is a fact that is required to be established by the

¶10

appellant petitioner with a due evidence. In absence of any such concrete evidence no direction, as prayed for, could have been given in Writ Jurisdiction by the Writ Court, hence, dismissal of writ petition is justified.

¶11

While upholding the order passed by learned single Bench we are of the considered opinion that appellant petitioner cannot be left remedyless to agitate his course, accordingly, this appeal is disposed of by keeping the appellant petitioner at liberty to avail appropriate remedy for claiming his dues including the remedy by way of submitting a representation to the competent authority pertaining to the grievances agitated.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Shekhar

¶13

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

Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Smt. Rashmi Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Kalyani Mishra Vs the Chairman/ Managing Director of Central Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Balendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Pankaj Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jarald Massey Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others