Dismissed

Cane Co-Operative Development Society Ltd. Khalilabad v. State Cane Service Authority Thru Chairman and Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2020SPLAD/210/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal questioned the Single Bench judgment that quashed a disciplinary order altering an employee's status from permanent cadre to seasonal. The Court held the appeal was maintained as it lacked jurisdiction, though the judgment order is upheld.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal is dismissed to uphold the direction of the Single Bench.

Cane Co-Operative Development Society Ltd… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 210 of 2010

¶3

Appellant :- Cane Co-Operative Development Society Ltd. Khalilabad Respondent :- State Cane Service Authority Thru Chairman And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Murtuza Ali,Ravindra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Rai,R.S. Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by learned Single Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52484 of 2009. By the judgment aforesaid, the learned Single Bench quashed the order dated 31st August, 2009 passed by the District Cane Officer as a consequence to a disciplinary action. Factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal is that an appointment was accorded to the respondent-petitioner on permanent basis. He was subjected to a disciplinary prosecutrix and the competent authority imposed a penalty. There is an alteration of the petitioner from permanent cadre to a seasonal employee. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-petitioner preferred the petition for writ. By a Single Bench, after examing all aspects of the matter, arrived at a conclusion that alteration from permanent status quo. A seasonal employee could not have been made a punishment prescribed under applicable to the rules, while doing so, learned Single Bench capted upon for the competent authority to impose a penalty in accordance with law.

¶6

On going through the judgment impugned, it is apparent that disciplinary authority as a matter of fact, cheeriest the very status and nature of appointment which is not permissible under the relevant rules. On behalf of the appellant, an argument was raised before the Single Bench by relying upon Clause (c) of Regulation 69 of the Uttar Pradesh Cane Cooperative Service Regulation 1975, then prescribes a reduction to a lower post or time-scale or to a lower stage in time-scale as a punishment.

¶7

A plain reading of the provisions aforesaid makes it clear that the penalty of reversion or reduction in rank or to a lower post scale is permissible under the Regulations but that is not for alteration of service status.

¶8

In view of it, we do not find any wrong with the judgment

¶9

impugned that may warrant interference in our appellate jurisdiction.

¶10

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2020 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Cane Co-Operative Development Society Ltd. Khalilabad v. State Cane Service Authority Thru Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cane Co-Operative Development Society Ltd. Khalilabad v. State Cane Service Authority Thru Chairman 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

Rudal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Suresh Vs State of U P and 5 Others

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

Inspector General of Police and Another Vs Ranvir Singh Malik

Kuldeep Kumar Shukla Vs District Jduge Pilibhit

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