Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2386 (ALL)

Laxman Dubey v. State of U. P.

2016-07-11

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Abhinava Upadhya, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.9.2010 by which the petitioner's contractual engagement has been dispensed with upon certain allegation that he was not found on duty at the time of inspection and in his place some other person was conducting the bus. 2. The petitioner challenged the said order by means of this writ petition which was initially disposed of by order dated 30.4.2012 by the learned Single Judge with the direction that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under the Regulations of 1981 Regulation. The said order was challenged by the Corporation before a Division Bench of this Court by means of Special Appeal (Defective) No. 648 of 2012 which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 wherein the Division Bench held that the by the earlier order of the learned Single Judge the petitioner was relegated to file an appeal under Regulations of 1981 Regulation which was not attracted in case of contractual employee and the Division Bench set aside the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.4.2012 and has remanded the matter to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh and left it open for the petitioner to raise all claims. 3. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the petitioner's letter of appointment dated 7.8.2004 clearly indicates that the said appointment was on contract basis and in any appointment on contract basis, the terms and condition of the engagement will flow from such the contract between the parties. 5. Although the parties have not filed copy of the contract, but one such copy, which is followed by the department, has been shown to me by the learned counsel for the Corporation. Paragraph 22 of the contract clearly indicates that in case of any dispute with regard to the contract an Arbitrator shall be appointed and the decision of the Arbitrator will be final. Shri Mishra further submits that there already exists a committee which is known as Arbitral Committee which is authorized to look into such matters. Paragraph 22 of the contract clearly indicates that in case of any dispute with regard to the contract an Arbitrator shall be appointed and the decision of the Arbitrator will be final. Shri Mishra further submits that there already exists a committee which is known as Arbitral Committee which is authorized to look into such matters. As such, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to his contractual engagement, in view of the paragraph 22 of the contract, he is entitled to make an application before the Arbitral Committee so constituted, which will look into the matter and will pass appropriate orders. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the letter of appointment itself it is very clear that the same has been made on account of applying the provisions of dying in harness rules. As such, the appointment of the petitioner has to be treated to be a permanent appointment and, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 7. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner as by the earlier order of learned Single Judge before this Court dated 30.4.2012, whereby the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under the 1981 Regulation applicable to regular employees, was not approved by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 648 of 2012 and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. However, it was left open for the petitioner to raise all these grounds and in furtherance thereof learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's appointment should be treated to be a permanent engagement being made under the "dying in harness rules". 8. It is to be noted that the appointment of the petitioner was of 2012. Till his dismissal at no stage the petitioner claimed that his engagement is of a permanent nature. Once a disciplinary action has now been taken, the petitioner is claiming that his appointment has to be treated under the dying in harness rules. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis. It is also not disputed that paragraph 22 of the contract indicates that there is an Arbitral Committee for redressal of dispute pertaining to the contract. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis. It is also not disputed that paragraph 22 of the contract indicates that there is an Arbitral Committee for redressal of dispute pertaining to the contract. As such the petitioner is at liberty to make an application before the Arbitral Committee under the Arbitration Act, 1996, which provides for redressal of the grievance. 9. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.