Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 411 (ALL)

Pawan Kumar v. Union Of India

2010-02-01

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 2. The petitioner was claiming employment on the strength of parity that was being extended to the personnel of Armed Forces and Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India and another, (2003) 4 SCC 524 and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Yasin Ansari, (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2508, to contend that the impugned order cannot be sustained. He further submits that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the petitioner is otherwise entitled for the employment as per the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 14.7.2009. It is further submitted by Sri Singh that even assuming that the Notification dated 10.9.2002 does not come to the aid of the petitioner, yet he is entitled for being given employment against a non-combatant post. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.R. Khan for the Union of India, it is evident that the earlier claim of the petitioner confirmed his 50% disability and the court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on that count. An observation was, however, made that in case the petitioner is entitled to any benefit under the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Yasin Ansari (supra), then his claim may be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the Army order dated 15.3.2000. 4. The Army order dated 15.3.2000 does not apply to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as he was a Member of Central Industrial Security Force and not of the Indian Army. The aforesaid finding could not, therefore, be successfully assailed before this Court. 5. Apart from this, the claim of the petitioner now stands narrowed down by the judgment of this Court dated 14.7.2009 and there is no occasion for this Court to re-consider the claim of disability of the petitioner. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the impugned order records the second finding that the petitioner is not entitled for any engagement keeping in view his 50% disability. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the impugned order records the second finding that the petitioner is not entitled for any engagement keeping in view his 50% disability. In this regard, it would be relevant to point out that the Full Bench in the case of Mohd. Yasin Ansari (supra) has itself noted that this Court cannot go into any such finding and it is beyond the pale of scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, in view of the Full Bench decision which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid issue cannot be permitted to be agitated. There is no material on record, which may indicate that the petitioner has been prejudiced in his cause after the decision dated 14.7.2009. Accordingly, the rules of natural justice cannot be pressed into service so as to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, raise his last submission that the claim of the petitioner can be considered on a non-combatant post. The said issue could have been raised in the earlier writ petition itself. Once the said writ petition has been disposed of on the aforesaid issue, there is no occasion to raise such a plea as a fresh cause of action. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.