Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 notionally from the date when juniors were promoted in case, he was qualified at the relevant time in accordance to rules." 14. Now coming to the present controversy. It is evident from the letter of the U.P. Public Service Commission dated Ist Sept., 1997 that the petitioner's services have been regularized in the cadre of Assistant Engineer against the vacancy/selection for the year 1988-89. Meaning thereby the petitioners shall deemed to be regular employee from 1988-89 in terms of approval of U.P. Public Service Commission noted in its letter dated Ist Sept., 1997. It is in agreement with the recommendation of State Government with regard to regularization of service under the Regularization Rule against the year 1988-89. Accordingly, by fiction of law, the petitioner shall be deemed to be a regular employee from 1988-89 and shall be entitled of all service benefit in terms thereon. 15. The finding recorded by the Government while dismissing the representation by impugned order dated Ist May, 2007 seems to be incorrect appreciation of law. Even if petitioner has been retired from service and the U.P. Public Service Commission has sent its approval after the petitioner's age of superannuation, the right available to petitioner in accordance with the government order dated 26th Sept., 1992 shall not extinguish. Petitioner shall be entitled for higher pay scale in accordance with the government order. More so, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that all other Assistant Engineers, whose services have been regularized with due approval by the order dated Ist Sept., 1992 have been given higher pay scale. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be treated differently from the persons who have been given higher pay scale after regularization of service with due approval of the Commission. 16. Keeping in view the order dated Ist Sept., 1997, it appears that services of several persons was regularised collectively hence the petitioner cannot be treated differently. Petitioner also falls in the same category of the employees who have been regularized in terms of approval granted by the Commission vide order dated Ist Sept., 1997. Giving a different treatment denying the promotional avenues or higher pay scale to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination on the part of the State authority. 17. In view of above, writ petition is allowed and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 1.5.2007 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) with all consequential benefits. We also issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reconsider the petitioner's case for payment of higher pay-scale in terms of Government Order dated 26.9.1992 (Annexure-11), keeping in view the observation made in the body of the present judgment expeditiously, say within a period of 2 months. 18. No order as to costs. ---------
1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P. and another 431 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J. Criminal Revision No. 1241 of 2011 Jile Singh ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. and another ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri C.B. Singh Counsel for the opposite Party: Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla A.G.A. Code of Criminal Proceding:-Section 210- offence under Section 302-on the basis of material available Magistrate Committed the case for Trail-after committal on complaint revisionist also found involved-Summoning Order Challenged on background after committal of case-Magistrate became functus officio-held-misconceived-case was never committed-against revisionist-in absence of any material during investigation-order passed by Magistrate perfectly justified. (Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.) 1. Heard Sri C.B. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. By this revision summoning order dated 3.1.2011 passed by the C.J.M., Mathura in complaint case no. 3100 of 2009, Tek Chanda Sharma Vs. Jile Singh and other, for offences under section 302,201 I.P.C. has been challenged. 3. The incident, in the present case relates with murder of Bharat Lal, in respect of which an F.I.R. was got registered against unknown persons. Investigation which ensued ultimately culminating in charge sheet Hari Singh as an accused for the crime. Findings his case triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed for his trial to the Sessions Court where it is still continuining. 4. Informant, on being aggrieved by non-filing of charge sheet against the revisionist, thought it appropriate to file a complaint case against the revisionist for committing murder of Bharat Lal. C.J.M. took cognizance of the offence and after observing due procedure prescribed for complaint case summoned the revisionist vide order dated 3.1.2011 which order now has been assailed in the instant revision. 5. Supporting the revision, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that under Section 309 of the Code, the entire case in respect of murder of Bharat Lal was committed to the Sessions Court on the earlier occasion of another accused Hari Singh and, therefore, cognizance qua revisionist on a subsequent occasion by C.J.M. in respct of that very case is unsanctified. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that after committal of case qua Hari Singh, C.J.M. had become functus officio. He further contends that once the charge sheet has been submitted in respect of a crime, no further complaint can be entertained in respect of same incident nor anybody else can be added as an accused. In support of his submissions, learned counsel based his opinion on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Chandra Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another (1997) 1 SCC 345.
Page 1 and 2: 1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 3 and 4: 1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 5 and 6: 1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 23 and 24: 1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 29 and 30: 1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. S
Page 31 and 32: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 33 and 34: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 35 and 36: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 37 and 38: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 39 and 40: 1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 45 and 46: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 47: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 51 and 52: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 53 and 54: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 55 and 56: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 57 and 58: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 59 and 60: 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissi
Page 61 and 62: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 63 and 64: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 65 and 66: 1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. St
Page 73 and 74: 1 All Dev Sharan Yadav V. State of
Page 75 and 76: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 77 and 78: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 79 and 80: 1 All Shiv Om and others V. Distric
Page 81 and 82: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 83 and 84: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 85 and 86: 1 All Nagina and others V. State of
Page 87 and 88: 1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 93 and 94: 1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 99 and 100:
1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 103 and 104:
1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
show all

Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?