1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Pravesh Kumar Singh 7127 ... vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|13 August, 2019
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(Application No. 56711 of 2011)
1. Pravesh Kumar has filed the appeal which is beyond limitation.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Case relates to the year 2011. Eight years have gone by. We do not find any justifiable reason to adjourn the case to await appearance of the counsel.
3. For the reasons given in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay and in view of the fact that learned counsel for respondents has not opposed the condonation of delay, we hereby allow the application.
4. Learned counsel for respondents prays for taking up the main case/appeal for adjudication today itself.
kkb/ 13.8.2019 Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 416 of 2011 Appellant :- Pravesh Kumar Singh 7127 (S/S)2010 Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Pravesh Kumar Singh has preferred this intra-Court special appeal in challenge to order dated 7.10.2010 rendered in Writ Petition No.7127(S/S) of 2010 Pravesh Kumar Singh versus Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Lucknow and another.
Vide the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed while considering that the petitioner was given appointment vide letter dated 6.5.1991 for joining as daily wages registration Clerk. The appellant/writ petitioner, however, was not allowed to join. Under the circumstances, the appellant/writ petitioner has no right to claim joining or regularisation in service.
2. The following needs to be noticed specifically from the impugned order :
Be that as it may, it is admitted that the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 06.05.1991, which itself clearly shows that it was a conditional appointment. The perusal of the Government Order dated 08.09.2010 indicates that all those work charged/daily wages employee who wee working on or before 29.06.1991 were required to be considered for regularization but since the petitioner was not in employment on 29.06,.1991, as such he can not claim the benefit of the Government Order dated 08.09.2010. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not in employment and as such he has no right to claim regularization.
In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost."
3. The facts and circumstances taken into account by learned Single Judge are legally tenable and do not call for interference. Prima facie, the appellant/writ petitioner has not been able to show violation of any of his rights.
We find no ground to interfere in intra Court special appellate jurisdiction. A possible view has been taken by learned Single Judge.
4. For all the reasons given above, special appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2019 kkb/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Ajai Lamba
  • Manish Mathur