# Ajay Kumar Singh v. The Tehsildar Sahjanwan, Gorakhpur and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 859
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-30
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40592 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-kumar-singh-v-the-tehsildar-sahjanwan-gorakhpur-and-others-40021
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226- the
employer states that the Services were
not unsatisfactory, would not ipso facto
mean
that
the
services
of
the
probationer were being terminated by
way
of
punishment-
the
order
of
termination was neither punitive nor
cast any stigma upon the petitioner.
There was absolutely no necessity to
hold any departmental enquiry and the
view to the contrary taken by the
Tribunal is wholly erroneous in law.

Held ( Para 4)

The order nowhere mentions that his
services
were
being
terminated
on
account of satisfactory work. The whole
basis of the order passed by the Tribunal
is that the services of respondent no. 1
had been terminated on account of
unsatisfactory work and, consequently, it
was obligatory upon the writ petitioner
to hold a formal enquiry. The view taken
by the Tribunal is, therefore, not borne
out from the material on record and,
thus cannot be sustained.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ajay Kumar Singh V. The Tehsildar Sahjanwan, Gorakhpur and others 859
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40592 of 2002

Ajay Kumar Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
The Tehsildar Sahjanwan, Gorakhpur and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.R. Dube

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Recovery Proceeding arrears in respect
of contract- as arrears of land Revenue-
held- proper.

Held- Para 3

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the recovery cannot be made as arrears
of land revenue. He has relied on the
Division Bench decision of this Court in
Ram Bilas Tibriwal versus Chairman,
Municipal Board, Titri Bazar and others,
1998
(2)
AWC
1468.
We
have
distinguished the above decision in our
judgment in Writ Petition No. 37629 of
2002, Smt. Malka Begum Versus State of
UP decided on 24.9.2002. Hence we
cannot agree with the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1998 (2) AWC 1468
W.P. No. 37629 of 02 Decided on 24.9.02

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
recovery in respect of a contract granted
to him for realization of Park fee as well
as Tahhazari from Nagar Panchayat
Sahjanwan, district Gorakhpur.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner had applied against
an advertisement and had been granted
the contract for realization of Park fee as
well as Tahbazari from the area concerned
as mentioned in the advertisement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that recovery cannot be made
as arrears of land revenue. He has relied
on the Division Bench decision of this
Court in Ram Bilas Tibriwal Versus
Chairman, Municipal Board, Titri Bazar
and others, 1998 (2) AWC 1468. We have
distinguished the above decision in our
judgment in Writ Petition No. 37629 of
2002, Smt. Malka Begum Versus State of
U.P. decided on 24.9.2002. Hence we
cannot agree with the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. As regard the petitioner's
allegation that he was restrained from
realizing park fee/tahbazari, he may make
a representation in this connection to the
District Magistrate, Gorakhpur who will
decide the same preferably within 6
weeks thereafter in accordance with law
after hearing the petitioner as well as the
respondent no. 3.

5. With the aforesaid direction, this
writ petition is disposed off.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. MATHUR, J.
THE HON'BLE N.K. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18283 of 1998

Commissioner
of
Income
Tax
and
another

...Petitioner
Versus
Ajai Singh and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Amit Sthalekar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri O.P. Gupta

Constitution of India, Article 226- the
employer states that the Services were
not unsatisfactory, would not ipso facto
mean
that
the
services
of
the
probationer were being terminated by
way
of
punishment-
the
order
of
termination was neither punitive nor
cast any stigma upon the petitioner.
There was absolutely no necessity to
hold any departmental enquiry and the
view to the contrary taken by the
Tribunal is wholly erroneous in law.

Held ( Para 4)

The order nowhere mentions that his
services
were
being
terminated
on
account of satisfactory work. The whole
basis of the order passed by the Tribunal
is that the services of respondent no. 1
had been terminated on account of
unsatisfactory work and, consequently, it
was obligatory upon the writ petitioner
to hold a formal enquiry. The view taken
by the Tribunal is, therefore, not borne
out from the material on record and,
thus cannot be sustained.

(Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, J.)

1. This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution has been filed for
quashing the judgment and order dated
2.4.1998 passed in O.A. No. 1273 of 1973
by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad.

2. Ajai Singh, respondent no. 1 to
the writ petition, was appointed as a
casual IV th Class employee in the office
of the Commissioner, Income Tax,
Allahabad, on 7.9.1994, and his services
were
terminated
on
4.11.1997.
He
challenged termination of his service by
filing an Original Application. The
Tribunal held that as the services of
respondent no. 1 had been terminated on
account of non satisfactory work, it was
incumbent upon the writ petitioner to hold
a formal departmental enquiry and as the
same was not done, the termination of his
services was illegal.

3. We have heard Sri Amit Sthalekar
for the petitioner, Sri O.P. Gupta for
respondent no. 1 and have perused the
record.

4. It may be stated at the very outset
that before the Tribunal Ajai Singh
neither filed copy of the appointment
order nor the copy of the order by which
his services were terminated. It was stated
in paragraph 4 (i) of the Original
Application that annexure-1 thereof is the
copy of the notice given to him on
4.11.1997. In the said notice he has been
described as a daily wager and it was
mentioned therein that his services would
stand terminated w.e.f. 4.11.1997. The
order nowhere mentions that his services
were being terminated on account of
unsatisfactory work. The whole basis of