Harshraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and Ors.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29748-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 462 of 2021

¶4

Appellant :- Harshraj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Hari Narayan Singh, Advocate for appellant Counsel for Respondent :- Ms. Isha Mittal, Standing Counsel for State

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

This special appeal is directed against the order dated 18.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.14314 (S/S) of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, against the order dated 02.06.2020 passed by the Joint District Programme Coordinator/Deputy Commissioner Labour Employment, Hardoi, has been rejected.

¶8

The appellant was engaged as Panchayat Mitra on contractual basis in the year 2006 under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005.

¶9

As per the material available on record, his contract which was initially for a period of two years was renewed till the year 2010 whereafter no renewal took place, however, the appellant continued to work as Panchayat Mitra. A complaint was made against the appellant regarding some wrongdoing whereby the payment was made to the husband of the Gram Pradhan for the period he was in jail, based on which, after enquiry, the Joint District Programme Coordinator made recommendation to the Administrative Committee of the Gram Panchayat on 02.06.2020 to put an end to the contract of the appellant.

¶10

When the petition came up before the Court, learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the contract provided for termination in case the incumbent was found involved in illegal or an unauthorized activity. The report in this regard clearly indicated making of payment by the appellant to the husband of the Village Pradhan while he was in jail and based on which the petition was dismissed. The Court also observed that the order of termination has not been passed

¶11

by the District Programme Coordinator but the Village Administrative Committee.

¶12

Several submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the appellant including the fact that pursuant to the recommendation dated 02.06.2020, no order has been passed and that the order could only be passed after following the procedure as prescribed in the agreement filed as AnnexureCA-1.

¶13

The submissions have also been made that though the appellant continued to perform his duties as Panchayat Mitra, he has not been paid the honorarium since the year 2010.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State makes submission that since the year 2010, no renewal of the contract has taken place and that the Gram Panchayat has taken the work from the appellant as Gram Rojgar Sahayak on its own and honorarium has been paid without renewal of the terms of contract. Further submissions have been made that once the period of contract has already come to an end long back and the same has not been renewed, in respect of the recommendation made, the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

¶15

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶16

The order impugned dated 02.06.2020 is only a recommendation made by the Joint District Programme Coordinator to the Administrative Committee of the Gram Panchayat. Admittedly, pursuant to the said recommendation, no order has been passed by the Gram Panchayat.

¶17

Submissions made that though no order has been passed pursuant to the recommendation dated 02.06.2020 and the appellant continues to perform his duties and he has not been paid the honorarium, in absence of any material, in this regard available on record, this submission cannot be countenanced in view of the stand which has been taken by the State regarding admitted non-renewal of the contract since the year 2010.

¶18

The plea raised that pursuant to the recommendation made, the action could only be taken only in terms of contract, Annexure No.CA-1 also in absence of further renewal of the said contract cannot be countenanced.

¶19

In view of the above facts situation, as no order pursuant to recommendation dated 02.06.2020 admittedly has been passed

¶20

and the claim made is that the appellant continued to perform his duties, no orders are required to be passed in the present appeal. The appellant would be free to take appropriate proceedings regarding the alleged non-payment despite he, performing the duties, as alleged.

¶21

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 Rakesh/-

¶23

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harshraj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshraj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Karan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Ashish Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl.Chief/Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko.and Others

Lucknow Christian College Lko. Thru. President /Manager/Secy. Dr. Prof. R.R. Lyall and Others vs Lalit Kumar Srivastava and 4 Others

Bhupendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Shiv Kumar Tripathi (Adv. Supreme Court of India) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. and Others

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development U.P. Lko. and Others