DEVI PRASAD PAL Vs. STATE CHIEF INFORMATION ...
LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-37
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
December 19,2017
Devi Prasad Pal
Appellant
VERSUS
State Chief Information ...
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
VIDE: DR. A.R. SIRCAR V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]RAVI S. NAIK V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SMT. VIJAY RANI VS. REGIONAL INSPECTRESS OF GIRLS SCHOOLS,REGION-1,MEERUT AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SHANKER AND ORS. V. BOARD OF DIRECTORS,UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR . [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD BHAGWATI DEVI VS. DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SHREECHAMUNDIMOPEDSLTD VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION CSICINOD SECRETARIAT MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
KANORIA CHEMICALS AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
INTER COLLEGE ARYA NAGAR KANPUR VS. KUMAR TIWARY [REFERRED TO]
GTC INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VS. RATHOD LADHU BECHAR [REFERRED TO]
BPL LIMITED VS. R SUDHAKAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NARENDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. C L MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAVENDRA RAO ETC VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
KALABHARATI ADVERTISING VS. HEMANT VIMALNATH NARICHANIA [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAM CHARAN DAS VS. PYARE LAL [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM MANOHAR SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
KANORIA CHEMICALS AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
DAYA SHANKAR TRIPATHI,J. -
(1.)Heard Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satish Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel .
(2.)By means of present appeal , the appellant has challenged the order dated 28.9.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no.5518 (SS) of 1993 ( Ashok Kumar Maurya Vs. District Magistrate, Faizabad and another).
(3.)Facts, in brief, of the present case are that in the office of District Supply Officer, Faizabad one post of peon was fallen vacant due to retirement of one Sri Ram Dutt Dubey, a class IV employee. By order dated 7.5.1993, the appointing authority/ District Magistrate, Faizabad appointed the appellant/Ashok Kumar Maurya on the said post temporarily. Subsequently by order dated 28/29.6.1993 his services were terminated, challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 5518 (SS) of 1993 ( Ashok Kumar Maurya Vs. D.M. Faizabad and another) . On 23.8.1993 an interim order was passed , the operative portion of the same reads as under:-
" In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order dated 28/29.6.1993 shall remain stayed. The opposite parties are directed to permit the petitioner to continue his services and to pay his salary."
(2.)By means of present appeal , the appellant has challenged the order dated 28.9.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no.5518 (SS) of 1993 ( Ashok Kumar Maurya Vs. District Magistrate, Faizabad and another).
(3.)Facts, in brief, of the present case are that in the office of District Supply Officer, Faizabad one post of peon was fallen vacant due to retirement of one Sri Ram Dutt Dubey, a class IV employee. By order dated 7.5.1993, the appointing authority/ District Magistrate, Faizabad appointed the appellant/Ashok Kumar Maurya on the said post temporarily. Subsequently by order dated 28/29.6.1993 his services were terminated, challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 5518 (SS) of 1993 ( Ashok Kumar Maurya Vs. D.M. Faizabad and another) . On 23.8.1993 an interim order was passed , the operative portion of the same reads as under:-
" In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order dated 28/29.6.1993 shall remain stayed. The opposite parties are directed to permit the petitioner to continue his services and to pay his salary."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.