SHITLA PRASAD DUBE Vs. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW
LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-170
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 11,2005

SHITLA PRASAD DUBE Appellant
VERSUS
STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AMITAVA LALA, SANJAY MISRA, JJ. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ petition challenged the judgment and order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. Horn paragraph 27 onwards of such judgment, we find that reasons are given by the Tribunal. What would be the appropriate order to be passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that Seasonal Collection Amins for specific tenure have not acquired any right to Continue as Seasonal Collection Amin. Admittedly, such engagements were made seasonally but not continuously. The petitioner's position in such list of Seasonal Collection Amin was 60. The Tribunal has passed an affirmative order giving general made of appointment taking into account The Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1974 as amended with effect from 23.10.1992. The order is very clear and distinct in respect of giving appointment, relaxation of age and other necessities. The order is dated 23.3.1999. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner he made a representation for his regular appointment finally in the year 1986 along with other subsequent representations. Even during the pendency of writ petition, a representation was made which was rejected. He says that as because of an order of the similar Tribunal dated 17.1.1990 such type of Collection Amins were given regular employment inspite of having been junior as per serial number he should be given regular appointment by an order of this court.
(3.) FROM the record it appears that the order dated 17.1.1990 was challenged before a writ jurisdiction of this court which was dismissed and a special application was made before the Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed. Therefore their services were confirmed. According to the petitioner, since those persons are juniors to him and since he has right of regularization or regular employment as per amended Rule of 1992, he should also get similar benefit.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.