Court No. - 55
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 711 of 2019 Appellant :- Ram Dinesh Prasad Respondent :- Adarsh Nagar Panchayat And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.T. Pandey,Ardhendu Prakash Mani Tripathi
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application
There is a delay of 69 days in filing the appeal. This application has been filed to condone the delay.
Cause shown for the delay has been satisfactorily explained.
There is no objection from the side of the respondents.
Delay condonation application is allowed and the delay is condoned.
Let the appeal be registered on regular side.
Order on Appeal
Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.T. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri A.K. Goyal, learned Additional Cheif Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
The appellant claimed to have been appointed on daily wage basis in Nagar Panchayat, Bhatpar Rani, District- Deoria by the Chairman. His services were dispensed with whereupon, he raised a claim before the Labour Court in 1991. Before the Labour Court, a compromise is said to have been filed by the Chairman stating that the appellant was taken back into service and on that basis the Labour Court disposed of the matter on 08.07.1997.
Later on, the Chairman vide order dated 19.11.1997, after recording that the said compromise has been procured by misrepresentation and misleading the Chairman, he withdrew the earlier continuance of the appellant and terminated his services. He also directed that the wages received by the appellant during the tenure of the Chairman may also be deposited, failing which the same would be recovered. This order was challenged by way of a writ petition being Writ A No. 4084 of 1998. The learned Single Judge vide judgement and order dated 17.04.2019 dismissed the writ petition on specific finding that the appointment of the petitioner-appellant was not in accordance with law and violated the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also in the teeth of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. It is this order which is under challenge in the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant despite the best efforts, could not convince us that there was any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. However, the only submission which appeals to us that the order of the Chairman dated 19.11.1997 which provided that the recovery of the salary paid may not be just and proper inasmuch as, the appellant had discharged his duties for which he was paid and the discharge of duties was under the compromise filed by the Chairman himself.
Later on, if he had found his compromise made on misrepresentation and misleading, would not in any manner deprive the appellant of the salary received for the work done.
Thus, without interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge, we dispose of this appeal only providing that no recovery would be made from the appellant pursuant to the impugned order dated 19.11.1997 passed by the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat concerned.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 P Kesari [Pankaj Bhatia, J.] [Vikram Nath, J.]