The High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against an order quashing a writ petition filed by a former daily wage sweeper of the Allahabad Bank seeking adjudication of his employment claims and termination, holding that disputed questions of fact prevented such adjudication in writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.650 of 2014 Arising out of
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15674 of 2006
====================================================== 1. Chander Prasad, Son of Sri Kashi Prasad, Resident of Ward no. 4, Ghoghardiha Nagar Panchayat, P.O- Ghoghardiha, P.S- Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani .... Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The Allahabad Bank through its General Manager, Head Office-2, Netajee Subhash Road, Calcutta- 700001.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant : M/S Suraj Narain Yadav & Annu Shree, Advs. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Ghoshrawe, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)
5 21-09-2016 The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is against an order passed by the learned single Judge on 02.05.2013 by which the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner-appellant to seek adjudication of his claims in accordance with law.
As per the petitioner-appellant he was engaged in July, 1998, as part time Sweeper on daily wages at the rate of Rs.30/- per day. The Bank initiated the process of appointment for which interview letter was issued on 23rd July, 2000, but, the
Patna High Court LPA No.650 of 2014 (5) dt.21-09-2016
2
petitioner-appellant admits that no one was appointed in pursuance of such interview. The grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that he has continued to work both on different wages, i.e., Rs.40/- per day in the year 2004 and on fixed salary, Rs.740/- till the month of April, 2005, but thereafter, even the payment of Rs.740/- per month was stopped. The prayer of the petitioner is to set aside, his termination in the year 2006.
The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner-appellant has raised disputed question of fact in respect of his appointment as to whether, the appointment, if any is on daily wager, fixed period or contractual or temporary etc. Such nature of appointment cannot be decided in proceeding under Section 226 of the Constitution of India as such question can be decided only after adequate opportunity is given to the parties in support of their respective claims.
Before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant relies upon Annexure 4 to the writ petition, dated 26th June, 2006, which contemplates 1/3rd of pay to certain personnel engaged as Safai Karamchari .
The question as to whether the appellant is covered by said scheme or not, is a matter of fact. Since, the appellant was
Patna High Court LPA No.650 of 2014 (5) dt.21-09-2016
3
engaged on part time daily wager, therefore, no right accrues to the appellant on disengagement of such services in the year 2006. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this
appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) SA/U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a daily wage sweeper of a bank has a right to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding termination of services.
Whether the petitioner was covered by the Safai Karamchari scheme to which 1/3rd pay was promised.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chander Prasad
The Allahabad Bank
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
