Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Shri Vinay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 January, 2021

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This petition is directed against the order dated 10.03.2016, whereby petitioner's claim for being absorbed in the employment of respondent - Nagar Panchayat, Jhunsi, Allahabad, has been rejected.
Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner was offered appointment in January 1998, however, salary was not paid to him and, therefore, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.40353 of 1999, which came to be disposed of on 19.07.2013. Relevant portion of the order of this Court is reproduced hereinafter:-
"According to the respondents since the petitioners themselves left the services and they have abandoned the services and stopped working, hence they are not entitled for the salary, though the claim of the petitioners is that no notice was served to initiate the proceeding and to terminate the services of the petitioners, hence they are not only entitled to continue in service but also to receive the salary. Admittedly they are not working, even after filing of the writ petition and even after interim order was passed on 3.10.2012 for payment of salary for the period in which they have worked. The circumstances show that though the petitioners were appointed, however, they have abandoned the services and there was no effort from their side for a long period to join the service since 1999 and as such they are not entitled for any salary for the period when they stopped working and to continue in service due to absence for a long period for about 14 years. Hence the present petition is finally disposed off with the direction to ensure the payment of the salary, if the entire amount has not been paid for the period during which period petitioners have worked.
The respondents Nagar Panchayat,Jhunsi to ensure the payment of arrears of salary, if there is any outstanding salary due, to be paid to the petitioners for the period when they have worked.
If there is still vacancy in the aforesaid post and services of the petitioner have not been terminated as yet and the petitioners appear for joining to work on that post in the office of Nagar Panchayat, they will be allowed to work till any order of termination is passed in accordance with law. However, they will not be entitled for any salary for the period when they have not worked.
In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed off. No order as to cost."
Claim of the petitioner, accordingly, has been considered and rejected vide order impugned dated 10.03.2016. This order records that petitioner's appointment was temporary and that financial approval to such appointment was not granted due to absence of sanctioned post. In para 7 of the order impugned it is recorded that there exists no vacant post of clerk/Nayab Moharrir in existence nor any such post has actually been sanctioned and, therefore, petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in employment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is entitled to continue in service, particularly, as no order of termination has been passed.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 disputing petitioner's right to continue on the ground that there exists no vacant post in existence.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
Specific averment made in para 11 of the counter affidavit as also the recital in order impugned that no post of clerk/Nayab Moharrir was sanctioned by the competent authority, is not specifically disputed by providing any material to the contrary. This Court has otherwise observed in its earlier judgment, which has attained finality, that petitioner had abandoned his services. It is otherwise admitted that petitioner had only worked between February 1998 to April 1999 and has neither worked thereafter nor has been paid salary after such period.
Considering the nature of petitioner's engagement as also the fact that there exists no vacancy against which petitioner can be appointed or allowed to continue, no exception can be taken to the order impugned whereby his claim has been rejected.
The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Atul
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shri Vinay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
21 January, 2021
Judges
  • Ashwani Kumar Mishra