Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 388 (UTT)

Gajraj Singh v. Lok Seva Adhikaran and another

2007-07-19

J.C.S.RAWAT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2007
Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Mr. S.M. Pingal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. They are heard on the Delay Condonation Application. 3. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Therefore, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed and the delay of 23 days, in filing the appeal, is hereby condoned. 5. They are heard on admission. 6. Appellant Gajraj Singh has filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 22-05-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 560 of 2007 (S/S). 7. Appellant Gajraj Singh filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: U(i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to summon the record and issue an order of certiorari, by directing the opposite parties to take back the petitioner in services, on post of peon with the consequential benefits including payment of his salary. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order / direction in nature of mandamus as may be deemed fit under the facts & circumstances of the case." 8. The writ petitioner, thus, was seeking quashing of the order, whereby the petitioner's services were terminated by the respondents. 9. Petitioner Gajraj Singh was appointed as Class IV employee on 01-10-2004 on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 31-12-2005. 10. The learned Single Judge, on a thorough consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, held that, as the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis, he had no right to claim his continuance in service. The learned Single Judge, therefore, passed the impugned judgment dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 11. Mr. S.M. Pingal, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the petitioner has no right to claim continuance in service, as he was appointed on ad-hoc basis. The learned counsel further submitted that though petitioner' services were terminated w.e.f. 31-12-2005, he was allowed to work till 30-05-2006 and the respondents have not paid him salary for the period from 01-01-2006 to 31-05-2006. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on ad-hoc basis. In view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on ad-hoc basis. In view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, a person, appointed on ad-hoc basis, has no right to claim his continuance in service. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order, whereby the petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 31-12-2005. 13. So far as the appellant's submission about non-payment of salary for the period from 01-01-2006 to 31-05-2006 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that no such prayer was made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 14. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. 15. The Special Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.