Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018 In Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 629 of 2018 Appellant :- Munendra Tyagi And 32 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Agarwal,Prabha Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vrindavan Mishra
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Agrwal, learned counsel for the appellants. There is a delay condonation application.
We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay is condoned and appeal shall be treated to be within time. The office shall give a regular number to the appeal.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 saqlain .
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 629 of 2018 Appellant :- Munendra Tyagi And 32 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Agarwal,Prabha Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vrindavan Mishra
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vrindavan Mishra for the respondent Ghaziabad Development Authority.
All the appellants are claiming their right to continue as work charge employees on the ground that they have been discriminated as against those who were appointed at par with the petitioners/appellants and continued later on by the Development Authority. The challenge raised in the writ petition was to the order dated 07.08.2001 contending that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has taken into account subsequent events for the purpose of declining the benefit of continuance but the impugned order is hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it records that certain other employees who had been continuing and were similarly situate as the petitioner-appellants had been continued by the Authority whereas the appellants were denied the same.
The learned Single Judge has after noting the facts come to the conclusion that the appellants were not entitled either for any regularization or absorption. The learned Single Judge also took notice of the fact that the appellants were not engaged after 1996. These facts are undisputed.
However the contention which has been raised on the ground of Article 14, even that will not come to the aid of the appellants keeping in view the fact that the order which has been passed in the year 2001 came to be challenge in the year 2006 in the writ petition and therefore, the Development Authority cannot be expected to have kept waiting for any such relief which could be granted to the appellants in future or a grievance that may be raised in future. Consequently, the Ghaziabad Development Authority continued with its projects and employees who were existing by making adjustments and then accordingly declining any such relief to the appellants by filing a counter affidavit before this Court.
We do not find any such infirmity or corresponding legal right to the appellants so as to extend any such benefit arising out of any such engagement. The appeal therefore lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to claim any benefit of any future engagement.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 saqlain