Dismissed

Brij Nath Yadav v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2018WRIA/37229/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization and salary. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower authority's finding that the petitioner falsely claimed non-transfer, failed to join his new post, and produced forged documents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed; the rejection of the regularization and salary claim was affirmed.

Brij Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37229 of 2006

¶3

Petitioner :- Brij Nath Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.S. Baghel,S.K.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Mandhyan,V.B.Misra,V.V.Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the work charge establishment of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad. After his appointment on 27.2.1991, the petitioner was posted to the Construction Division-III of the Parishad in District-Kanpur. The petitioner claimed that his salary was not being disbursed as and when it became due. He also claimed entitlement to regularization in service. The petitioner asserted his claim by instituting a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was registered as Writ Petition No.10478 of 1994. The writ petition was disposed of by judgement and order dated 6.5.2005. The operative portion of the judgement is extracted hereunder:

¶6

"In view of the aforesaid fact, it is provided that the petitioner will submit a detailed representation for his working to respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks. If such representation is made, respondent No.2 is directed to pass an appropriate detailed and reasoned order according to law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner regarding payment of salary preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶7

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs."

¶8

In pursuance of the said judgment rendered by this Court, the respondents authorities be considered the claim of the petitioner. His claim was rejected by order dated 12.6.2006.

¶9

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

¶10

12.6.2006 passed by the respondent No.2. He has assailed the same in the instant writ petition.

¶11

Heard Sri Saroj K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ved Vyas Misra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4.

¶12

The order impugned dated 12.6.2006 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner records that the construction works pertaining to Districts Hamirpur and Banda, which were earlier in the jurisdiction of the Kanpur Division of the Parishad, were transferred and merged in the Jhansi Division of the Parishad. Consequently, all employees, who were recruited to such projects and were posted at Kanpur, stood transferred to Jhansi. By the order of Deputy Director (Construction), Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi, Kanpur by letter no.1028 dated 24.10.1992, all the employees were transferred with effect from 1.12.1992 to two different Mandis. The petitioner was transferred to Mandi Samiti, Charkhaari, District-Hamirpur. He was attached to Mahoba. Subsequently, the Director, Mandi Parishad by letter no.2640 dated 24.11.92 attached all the employees who were engaged in construction works related to Hamirpur Banda to construction division, Jhansi from construction division Kanpur to the construction Division, Jhansi. The said employees were earlier part of the construction division Kanpur. Consequent to the aforesaid orders, the petitioner was attached to construction division Jhansi with effect from 1.12.92. By order dated 4.9.1996, the authorities of the Jhansi Division intimated the Parishad in Kanpur that the petitioner had failed to join his duties at Jhansi and had absented himself.

¶13

The claim of the petitioner is that no transfer order was served upon him and consequently, he could not join at Jhansi. The defence of the petitioner was disbelieved by the respondents authorities and has been rejected. The respondent No.2 in the order dated 12.6.2006 has found that all the employees similarly situated as petitioner, who were working in the Kanpur Division and were engaged in the projects pertaining to Banda and Hamirpur, had joined District-Jhansi after the said projects came within the jurisdiction of the Jhansi Division. The petitioner was the sole exception. Hence, it was concluded that the petitioner cannot state that no transfer order was served upon him since all similarly situated persons had already submitted their joining reports and had been working continuously. The finding rests on sound reasons corroborated by official documents. There is no infirmity in the aforesaid order.

¶14

The petitioner has produced a letter dated 15.4.1994, which indicated that the petitioner was working at Kanpur Division with effect from 27.7.1991 to 15.4.1994. The letter does not add any weight to the case of the petitioner. The question remains how could the petitioner continue at Kanpur when the entire construction division had been merged in the construction division at Jhansi. More importantly, the petitioner produced certain original documents purportedly signed by one Sri R.K. Singh, Assistant Engineer before the respondent authorities. Upon enquiry, it was found that the said documents were not genuine and signatures of the said R.K.Singh were not authentic. The finding of fabricated documents have not been submitted by the petitioner, is a finding of fact.

¶15

Nothing has been brought in the record to impeach the finding. On the contrary reliance on forged documents casts a doubt on the bona-fides of the petitioner. This act of the petitioner is sufficient to dis-entitle him to any discretion from this Court.

¶16

Further, the order impugned also finds that the claim of the petitioner of having work in Kanpur for number of years was false. The correspondence, which the petitioner made with the respondents authorities, was not from Kanpur but made from Jaunpur. Further, this finding has not been rebutted by any credible material or specific pleadings in the record.

¶17

The finding that the petitioner failed to join his place of posting at Jhansi has been returned after due consideration and material in the record. No exception can be taken to the aforesaid finding. The respondent No.2 rightly found that the petitioner had abandoned his duty and some documents in support of his claim, were forged.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention to the letter dated 19.3.2014 written by the respondent No.2 to the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P.-respondent No.1. The letter does not in any way improve the case of the petitioner as all the documents and material facts mentioned therein have been considered in the order impugned. Further, looking to the conduct of the petitioner of trying to sway the respondents authorities on the foot of false documents, disentitles to any relief from this Court.

¶19

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.8.2018 Ashish Tripathi

Brij Nath Yadav v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Nath Yadav v. State of U.P. and 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

Brijesh Kumar Vs Smt. Roshan Jahan and Others

Smt. Tara Devi Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Narain Vs State of U.P. and Others

State of U.P. Vs Nabi Box and Others

Smt. Prem Kumari Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pritam Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others