Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29847 of 2011 Petitioner :- Navin Chandra Srivastava Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Srivastava,Satyash Chandra Maurya,Siddharth Niranjan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.K. Chandel
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.
The petitioner essentially prays for the issuance of a direction for the petitioner being reinstated on the post of Unit Officer. After affidavits were filed by the respondents, the petitioner by way of an amendment application which was allowed, also challenged an order of 26 October 1991 pursuant to which his services were terminated.
The petitioner asserts that he was appointed as a daily wager in the respondent Corporation on 25 July 1983. He came to be named as an accused in Case Crime No.309 of 1991. That F.I.R. was registered on 12 September 1991. The disclosure made by the respondents evidences that the engagement of the petitioner as a daily wager was discontinued by an order of 26 October 1991. It is admitted to the petitioner that he did not work after 1991 and that he only appeared before the respondents in 2009 after he had been acquitted in the criminal case. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not permit him to join, and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the writ petition was filed. It is further contended that the petitioner had no notice or knowledge of the order of 26 October 1991 and it was only when a copy of the aforesaid order was brought on record by way of a counter affidavit that the petitioner derived knowledge.
As this Court reads the order of 26 October 1991, it is evident that the same is one of termination simpliciter. Undisputedly, the petitioner had been engaged only on daily wage basis and thus did not hold a lien on any particular post. The Court also fails to find any justifiable reason for the petitioner having failed to challenge the action of his disengagement at the first available opportunity. As was conceded, the petitioner never appeared before the respondents to discharge duties between 1991 and 2009. The petitioner has also failed to establish any right to seek re-engagement or re-employment merely because he came to be acquitted in the criminal case subsequently.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Rakesh