GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SRI MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-169
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 23,2017

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
VERSUS
Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd August, 2007 whereby the claim of the respondent-petitioner, inspite of positive findings against the petitioner, has been allowed by giving sweeping directions to retain him in service in the Ghaziabad Development Authority on the post of a care taker in the Estate section of the authority with a further direction that since the respondent had worked as a Public Relation Officer on account of the appellant-authority itself having allowed him to do so, the State Government shall consider the proposal of the appellant-authority for creation of a post of a Public Relation Officer, and in the event the post is sanctioned the respondent-petitioner would be given the first preferential right of appointment. In all seven directions were issued and the writ petition was allowed subject to the said directions.
(2.) At the very outset, it may be put on record that the respondent-petitioner had claimed continuance on the post of Public Relation Officer in the appellant-Ghaziabad Development Authority and payment of salary, but the State Government vide order dated 20th December, 1991 intimated the appellant authority that it had no jurisdiction to either create the post or to appoint the respondent-petitioner against it and, therefore, the appellant-authority was obliged to terminate the service of the respondent-petitioner forthwith. It is, this order of the State Government dated 20th December, 1991 that was made the basis for the challenge raised in the writ petition praying for its quashing and for directions for continuance in service and payment of salary.
(3.) As observed above, the writ petition was allowed with the directions contained in the impugned judgment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner had been granted an interim order of status-quo and based thereon the respondent-petitioner had continued to work as a Public Relation Officer and was paid salary by the appellant-authority.;


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