Dismissed

Shakir Ali v. the Director General Prantiya Rakshak Dal Jail Road and Ors.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2018WRIA/56780/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Colony at Gorakhpur (CDG) dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's services as a Volunteer/Swayam Sevak. The core court held that the role was a contractual employment on a daily wage basis, not statutory service, meaning termination did not require a formal preparation inquiry. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no relief granted for regularization or setting aside the termination order; petitioner advised to file representation for future consideration.

Shakir Ali Vs the Director General Prantiya Rakshak… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 56780 of 2003

¶3

Petitioner :- Shakir Ali

¶4

Respondent :- The Director General Prantiya Rakshak Dal Jail Road & Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Radha Kant Ojha,Satyanshu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶7

Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 02.01.2002 passed by the Chief Development Officer, Gorakhpur by which, it is claimed, the petitioner's services were terminated.

¶8

The petitioner claims to have been selected as Guard with the Prantiya Rakshak Dal. He also claims to have been imparted training on that post. The petitioner further contends that he had been working since 15.04.1982 when suddenly and without any prior notice or inquiry his services had been terminated by the impugned order. Upon the present petition being filed the same was entertained by the order dated 05.01.2004 and the following interim order was passed:-

¶9

"The petitioner after completing his training has been working since 1982. He has been dismissed by an order dated 2.1.2002, annexure-4 to this petition. Considering the grounds for discharge and the fact that the petitioner who has been working from 1982, it does not appear to have anything adverse against him otherwise, it is directed that till further orders operation of the impugned order dated 2.1.2002 will remain stayed.

¶10

Standing counsel to file counter affidavit within one month."

¶11

In such circumstances the present writ petition has come to be heard today.

¶12

Whether or not the petitioner may had been working since 1982 is disputed however it remains a fact that the petitioner has been working since 2004 under interim order by this Court.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the petitioner had only been appointed as a Volunteer/Swayam Sevak and, therefore, there was neither any post nor any selection made nor there exists any cadre or any Government rule as may mandate them authorities to first institute a proper disciplinary proceedings before dispensing with the services rendered by the petitioner. It has thus been submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no pleading or documentary evidence in support of the contention made that the petitioner had been selected and thus appointed on any particular post. No rule or procedure has been shown to exist either for the purpose of appointment or for award of any punishment to the petitioner or for dispensing with service of Volunteers/Swayam Sevak.

¶15

Thus, in absence of any such Rule, in the first place a Volunteer/Swayam Sevak by very nature of the term is an engagement at the pleasure of the employer or a contractual employment. A Government order appears to have existed at the relevant time providing for imparting training to youth and to offer engagement at certain fixed dates.

¶16

Thus, such engagement was nothing more than and engagement in daily wage basis only. There did not arise any permanent service or engagement. The fact that the petitioner may have continued in such engagement since 14 years under interim orders would also not give rise to any right in his favour where none exists in law to begin with.

¶17

Accordingly, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner with regard to regularization in service or to set aside the impugned order. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner may have continued to remain engaged for 14 years during pendency of the writ petition, it is left open to the petitioner to make a proper representation for consideration of appropriate relief in accordance with law. If such representation is filed before the Chief Development Officer, Gorakhpur the same will be considered in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.11.2018 Shahroz

Shakir Ali v. the Director General Prantiya Rakshak Dal Jail Road and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakir Ali v. the Director General Prantiya Rakshak Dal Jail Road and Ors.

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

The Kisan Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. Thru G.M. Vs Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/S Gambhir Paper and Board Private Limited Vs Commissioner U.P. Trade Tax Lucknow

Sant Lal Vs Commissioner Kanpur Division Kanpur and Others

Ram Badan Singh Vs D.I.O.S and Others

Somendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs Director of Education and Others