# Daljeet Singh v. Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Mandal Banda and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4159 of 1993
- **Bench:** R.B. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/daljeet-singh-v-commissioner-chitrakoot-dham-mandal-banda-and-another-40111
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226
Regularisation
-
petitioner
was
appointed as class III employee on
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Daljeet Singh V. Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Mandal Banda and another
371
adhoc basis in 1990- terminated on
6.1.93 -stayed on 3.2.1993 by High Court
- the rule 4 (1) of U.P. Regularisation of
adhoc appointment on posts outside the
preview of Public Service Commission
(3rd amendment Rules 2001 - entitled
for Reguarisation - objection about
continuity in service pursuant to interim
order passed by the court shall not come
in the way of Regularisation-direction
issued by the court accordingly.

Held- Para 3

This
submission
in
my
respectful
consideration is not correct as the actual
services rendered in continuity as ad-hoc
employee has to be considered for the
purpose of regularization under Rules,

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
370
arrangements for the supply of printed
MM-11 Form books on payment basis.

(2) No person shall carry, within the
State, a minor mineral by a vehicle,
animal or any other mode of transport,
excepting railway, without carrying a
pass in Form MM-11 issued under subrule (1).

(3) Every person carrying any
mineral shall, on demand by any officer
authorized under rule 66 or such officer
as may be authorized by the State
Government in this behalf, show the said
pass to such officer and allow him to
verify the correctness of the particulars of
the pass with reference to quantity of the
minor mineral.

(4) The State Government may
establish a check post for any area
included in any mining lease or permit,
and when a check post is so established
public notice shall be given of this fact by
publication in the Gazette and in such
other manner as may be considered
suitable by the State Government.

(5) No person shall transport a
minor mineral for which these rules apply
from such area without first presenting
the mineral at the check post established
for that area for verification of the weight
or measurement of the mineral.

(6) Any person found to have
contravened any provision of this rule
shall, on conviction, be punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to six months or
with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees or with both.]"

7. Thus the question of issue of
Form MM-11 by lessee only arises when
a consignment of minor mineral is sent by
vehicle, animal or any other mode of
transport. Petitioner having issued the
Form MM-11 between 1.4.2001 to
11.4.2001, he was liable to pay the royalty
at the rate as existing on that day. The fact
that petitioner received Form MM-11
from the office of District Magistrate
price to 31.3.2001 is not relevant. ]

In the aforesaid view of the matter I
do not find any error in the order of
appellate authority.

The writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4159 of 1993

Mohd. Abdul and others ...Petitioners
Verses
The District Judge, Ballia ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri S.B. Pandey
Sri Dinesh Dwivedi
Sri S.K. Singh
Sri A.K. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri K.R. Sirohi
Sri Amit Kumar
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226
Regularisation
-
petitioner
was
appointed as class III employee on
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Daljeet Singh V. Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Mandal Banda and another
371
adhoc basis in 1990- terminated on
6.1.93 -stayed on 3.2.1993 by High Court
- the rule 4 (1) of U.P. Regularisation of
adhoc appointment on posts outside the
preview of Public Service Commission
(3rd amendment Rules 2001 - entitled
for Reguarisation - objection about
continuity in service pursuant to interim
order passed by the court shall not come
in the way of Regularisation-direction
issued by the court accordingly.

Held- Para 3

This
submission
in
my
respectful
consideration is not correct as the actual
services rendered in continuity as ad-hoc
employee has to be considered for the
purpose of regularization under Rules,
2001. From this point of view all the
petitioners are entitled to continue under
rules, 2001 against the substantive
vacancies. Here vacancies in substantive
capacity
are
available
where
the
petitioners services are being rendered.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J.)

Heard Sri U.N. Sharma along with
Sri S.B. Pandey learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as Sri K.R. Sirohi
along with Sri Amit Kumar learned
counsel for the respondent.

1. The petitioners were initially
appointed in the year 1990 in the class III
category in the judgeship of district Ballia
and when their services were terminated
on 6.1.1993 they approached this court by
way of this writ petition and the interim
order was passed on 3.2.1993 which reads
as below :

"Petitioners claim to have been
appointed as class III employees in
District Ballia in the year 1991-92. Their
services have been terminated by an order
dated 6.1.1993 by the District Judge ,
Ballia . It is against this order that this
writ petition has been filed .

The Registrar of this court has now
issued
an
order
dated
24.12.1992
according to which adhoc Class III
employees of the subordinate Courts who
are entitled to the benefit of the U.P.
Regularisation of adhoc appointment (on
posts outside the purview of the Public
Service Commission) Rules 1979 be
regularized. In para 2 of the above letter ,
it has been further been provided that
services of those employees of Class III ,
who were appointed prior to 21.5.1992
shall not be terminated and they may be
allowed to continue subject to their
appearing and passing the competitive
test held for the selection of Class III
employees of the Subordinate Court . In
view of the above order of the Registrar ,
the petitioners who were appointed in
1991-92 are also entitled to continue
subject to their appearing at and passing
in the competitive test to be held for the
selection of Class III employees. In view
of the facts and circumstances of the case
the operation of the impugned order dated
6.1.1993 shall remain stayed.

Learned Standing counsel prays for
and it granted one month time to file
counter affidavit. Petitioners will have
thereafter two weeks time to file rejoinder
affidavit.

List this writ petition before the
appropriate Court in the 2nd week of
April, 1993.

2. Now counter affidavit and
rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged
and during the course of hearing on
4.2.2003 a necessity was felt as to what
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
372
rules in respect of the petitioners are to be
adopted. A supplementary affidavit has
been filed. Generally the documents are
rendered in the registry unless it is
accepted by the Court out of necessity
when the court intends to dispose of the
case finally and other parties to the case
are
not
objecting
case.
Since
the
supplementary
affidavit
is
directly
submitted to the Court and is being
accepted and placed on the record and a
advance copy has already been served to
Sri K.R.Sirohi learned counsel for the
respondent/District Judge Ballia . After
perusal of this supplementary affidavit, it
reveals that earlier U.P. Regularisation of
Adhoc Appointment (on posts outside the
purview
of
the
Public
Service
Commission) Rules 1979 was applicable.
Now learned counsel for the petitioners
has
brought
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Regularisation of ad-hoc Appointments
(On Posts outside the purview of the
Public Service Commission) (Third
Amendments) Rules, 2001 passed on
20th December, 2001 which has been
fairly accepted by Sri K.R.Sirohi learned
counsel for the District Judge, Ballia/
respondent. According to this in the
column of rule 4(1) or earlier rule, 1979
in para(2) to the Rules, 2001 it has been
incorporated as given below:

(2) In
the
Utter
Pradesh
Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointment
(On Posts outside the purview of the
Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979
in rules 4 for existing sub-rule(1) set out
in column 1 below, the sub-rule as set out
in column 2 shall be substituted, namely ;

Column-1

Existing Sub-rule
(1) Any person who-
(i) was directly appointed on ad-hoc basis
before January 1,1979 and is continuing
in
service,
such
on
the
date
of
commencement of these rules;

(ii) possessed requisite qualifications
prescribed for regular appointment as the
time of such ad-hoc appointment ; and

(iii) has completed or , as the case may be
, after he has completed three years
service shall be considered for regular
appointment in permanent or temporary
vacancy , as may be available , on the
basis of his record and suitability before
any regular appointment is made in such
vacancy in accordance with the relevant
rules of orders.

Sub-rule as hereby substituted;
(1) Any person who-
(i) was directly appointed on ad-hoc basis
on or before June 30,1998 and is
continuing in service as such on the date
of commencement of the Utter Pradesh
Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments
(on posts outside the purview of the
Public
Service
Commission)
(Third
Amendment) Rules , 2001.
(ii) possessed requisite qualifications
prescribed for regular appointment as the
time of such ad-hoc appointment ; and
(iii) has completed or , as the case may be
after he has completed three years service
shall
be
considered
for
regular
appointment in permanent or temporary
vacancy, as may be available , on the
basis of his record and suitability before
any regular appointment is made in such
vacancy in accordance with the relevant
rules or orders.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and I find that undisputedly
the petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Mohd. Abdul and others V. The District Judge, Ballia
373
service and at the time of appointment to
the post of regular candidates in class III
category and they have been were in
possession of the required qualifications
for appointment to the post of regular
candidates in class III category and they
have been working since their initial
appointment irrespective of the manner
after getting protection of interim order
dated 4.2.2003. Learned counsel for the
respondents
has
submitted
that
the
continuing in service as a ad-hoc
employee in class III category by the
interim order of this court dated 4.2.2003
is not a usual continuance and this benefit
is not to be extended. This submission in
my respectful consideration is not correct
as the actual services rendered in
continuity as ad-hoc employee has to be
considered
for
the
purpose
of
regularization under Rules, 2001. From
this point of view all the petitioners are
entitled to continue under rules, 2001
against the substantive vacancies . Here
vacancies in substantive capacity are
available where the petitioners services
are being rendered.

4. Therefore, this writ petition is
disposed of with the direction that the
respondent/district Judge, Ballia has to
consider the cases of regularization of the
petitioners in accordance with law as well
as in view of the provision of Rules, 2001
as indicated above expeditiously within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
on behalf of the petitioners.

5. In view of the above observations,
writ petition are disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 5TH MARCH, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28558 of 2002

P.D. Tandon

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.B. Upadhya
Sri R.K. Yadav
Sri H.C. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri B.N. Singh
S.C.

Cantonment
Act
1924,
Section-181Sanction of Map-refused on the ground
the
property in
question does not
belongs to the petitioner-while High
Court in. S. Appeal No. 2866/78 decided
on 27.11.1981 held the petitioner to be
owner-in view of Roman Law Maxim
"interest republication at sit litium"-
rejection order held illegal but keeping in
view of Pendency of appeal authority
concerned is directed to decide the same
in accordance with law.

Held- Para -5

The prayer for sanction was refused by
the Cantonment Board on the ground
that the property does not belong to the
petitioner. This ground for refusing to
sanction
the
construction
is
clearly
illegal in view of our observations made
above.
However,
since
the
appeal
against the order of the Cantonment
Board is pending before the appellate
authority
we
direct
the
appellate
authority to decide the appeal of the
petitioner
in
accordance
with
law
preferably within six weeks treating the
property as belonging to the petitioner.

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