# Dilip Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 368
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-04-22
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1972 of 2009
- **Bench:** R.K. Agrawal, Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dilip-kumar-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41485
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Sri M.C. Mishra
Sri Rajeshwar Singh
Sri Rajnish Dubey
Sri Umesh Kushwaha
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226appointment on post of Shiksha Mitra
treating under Physically handicapped
quota-petition dismissed by Single Judge
with specific finding-that certificate of
45% handicapped a forged certificateAppellate Court directed the appellant to
deposit
Rs.25000/-
with
Registrar
General-only thereafter medical board
shall examine about physical disability-
1 All] Dilip Kumar Gupta V. State of U.P. and others
369
medical board found some defect in right
leg but can not be treated as physical
handicapped-dismissal
held
proper
amount deposited under direction of
Court be refunded to appellant.

Held: Para 3

The respondent No.5 was examined by
the Medical Board on 16.1.2010 and
even though the Board was of the
opinion that there is some deficiency in
the right leg of the respondent No.5, as a
result of which, she walks with limp but
the deficiency is not such which can
qualify for issuance of a handicapped
certificate. That being the position in our
considered opinion the appointment of
the respondent No.5, as Shiksha Mitra
under the handicapped person was not
justified. The special appeal succeeds
and is allowed. The appointment of the
respondent No.5 is hereby set aside.
Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant
under the order of the High Court be
refunded to the appellant.

## Text

368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
mentioned in English under the place
mentioned as borrower's name and
address. However, the column containing
the borrower's signature is left blank.

7. Shri Maneesh Trivedi submitted
that the name of Rafiq Ahmad written in
english is his signature. This can not be
accepted for the simple reason that Rafiq
Ahmad had signed the loan agreement in
Hindi and, further the name and address
only contains the name of the petitioner in
English. The signature column is blank
which goes to establish the case set-up by
the petitioner that the recovery agents
employed by the bank forcibly seized the
vehicle from the petitioner for nonpayment of the instalments.

8. In this view of the matter, we are
of the considered opinion that the action
adopted by the bank can not be justified in
law and need to be deprecated. The bank
is, therefore, directed to forthwith return
the vehicle U.P. 70 AT 6632 to the
petitioner in a perfect running condition.
As the petitioner has been deprived
illegally and without the authority of law
from running the vehicle in question from
6.5.2008, the petitioner is entitled to be
compensated. Instead of quantifying the
amount of compensation, we deem fit and
proper and also in the interest of justice
that the bank should not demand any
interest on the amount advanced for the
aforesaid period beginning from 6.5.2008
till the date when the vehicle is returned.
The repayment schedule should also be
extended by excluding the period when
the vehicle was forcibly seized and was in
possession of the bank. We, therefore,
direct that for the period from 6.5.2008
when the vehicle was seized illegally till
its actual return, the bank shall not realise
any interest on the amount of the loan
advanced to the petitioner and, further for
the aforesaid period, there shall be a
moratorium
of
repayment
of
the
instalment and it shall begin only after
one month from the date of the return of
the vehicle. As the interest of the
petitioner has been taken care of by the
aforesaid directions, we are not awarding
any cost to the petitioner.

9. The writ petition stands allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Special Appeal No. 1972 of 2009

Dilip Kumar Gupta

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Surendra Kumar Mishra
Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri M.C. Mishra
Sri Rajeshwar Singh
Sri Rajnish Dubey
Sri Umesh Kushwaha
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226appointment on post of Shiksha Mitra
treating under Physically handicapped
quota-petition dismissed by Single Judge
with specific finding-that certificate of
45% handicapped a forged certificateAppellate Court directed the appellant to
deposit
Rs.25000/-
with
Registrar
General-only thereafter medical board
shall examine about physical disability-
1 All] Dilip Kumar Gupta V. State of U.P. and others
369
medical board found some defect in right
leg but can not be treated as physical
handicapped-dismissal
held
proper
amount deposited under direction of
Court be refunded to appellant.

Held: Para 3

The respondent No.5 was examined by
the Medical Board on 16.1.2010 and
even though the Board was of the
opinion that there is some deficiency in
the right leg of the respondent No.5, as a
result of which, she walks with limp but
the deficiency is not such which can
qualify for issuance of a handicapped
certificate. That being the position in our
considered opinion the appointment of
the respondent No.5, as Shiksha Mitra
under the handicapped person was not
justified. The special appeal succeeds
and is allowed. The appointment of the
respondent No.5 is hereby set aside.
Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant
under the order of the High Court be
refunded to the appellant.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. The present Special Appeal has
been filed against the judgment and order
dated 12.11.2009 passed by the learned
Single Judge, whereby the writ petition
preferred by the appellant had been
dismissed.

2. Before the learned Single Judge,
the case set up by the appellant was that
the respondent No.5 got appointment as
Shiksha Mitra claiming preference of
being handicapped person and on the
other hand she is not a handicapped
person. Vide order dated 22.12.2009, the
Court had passed the following orders;

"It is the assertion of the writ
petitioner that respondent no.5 is not a
handicapped person and the certificate
obtained by her that she is a handicapped
to the extent of 45% is forged.

On the writ petitioner depositing a
sum
of
Rs.25,000/-
(Twenty
Five
Thousand only) by 4.1.2010 in the
Registry of the Court, let respondent
No.5, Smt. Rinku Devi be examined by
the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria. The
Chief
Medical
Officer
may
take
assistance of any other medical officer for
her examination. The Chief Medical
Officer,
shall
proceed
to
examine
respondent No.5 only when the writ
petitioner produces before him the receipt
showing deposit of the aforesaid amount
in the Registry of this Court. The Chief
Medical Officer, shall submit his report
by 11.1.2010 to this Court in sealed cover.

In case, respondent No.5, is held to
be a handicapped person, the amount
deposited by the writ petitioner, shall be
forfeited."

3. The respondent No.5 was
examined by the Medical Board on
16.1.2010 and even though the Board was
of the opinion that there is some
deficiency in the right leg of the
respondent No.5, as a result of which, she
walks with limp but the deficiency is not
such which can qualify for issuance of a
handicapped certificate. That being the
position in our considered opinion the
appointment of the respondent No.5, as
Shiksha Mitra under the handicapped
person was not justified. The special
appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
appointment of the respondent No.5 is
hereby set aside. Rs.25,000/- deposited by
the appellant under the order of the High
Court be refunded to the appellant.
---------
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATD: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34179 of 1994

Suresh Babu

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.G. Padia
Sri Prakash Padia

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Compassionate
appointmentcancellation on ground of non availability
of substantive post-offer given to work
on lower post-counter affidavit plea
taken the post on which appointment
made has been occupied by permanent
appointee-offer
for
appointment
on
lower post refused by petitioner-hence
not entitled for any relief-held-without
affording any opportunity-even after
reinstatement of permanent incumbentpetitioner
can
not
be
thrown
out-
compassionate
appointment-shall
be
treated as regular appointment for every
purposes-dismissal order quashed with
all consequential benefits.

Held: Para 9

The contention with regard to the status
of appointment of a compassionate
claimant is covered by the Division
Bench decision in the case of Yogendra
Ram Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. reported
in (2002) 5 AWC 3708. The petitioner,
therefore, could not have been thrown
out
of
employment
or
given
an
alternative employment against a lower
post.
Secondly,
the
said
order
of
termination
of
the
services
of
the
petitioner could not have been passed
without giving any notice or opportunity.
The third contention has also to be
accepted inasmuch as the writ petition
filed by Lala Ram has already been
allowed. Respondents had already filed
counter affidavits and after 16 years are
praying again for further time for which
there is no justification.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel Sri S.K. Mishra who
prays that the respondents want further
two weeks' time to file a response to the
order dated 30.3.2010.

2. This matter is pending for the past
16 years and two counter affidavits have
been filed on behalf of the State, one by
Mr. Ghanshyam Singh which was served
on the learned counsel for the petitioner
on 2.12.1994 and second counter affidavit
sworn by Sripati Prasad which has been
served on the learned counsel for the
petitioner on 26.7.1995. In view of the
affidavits which have already been filed
on record, the only query made by the
Court on 30.3.2010 was with regard to the
judgment which has been brought on
record
through
the
supplementary
affidavit dated 4.5.2007 in the case of
Lala Ram Vs. State of U.P. & others
decided on 4.5.2007.

3. Learned Standing Counsel,
therefore, states that time may again be
granted for ascertaining the instructions
thereon.

4. In my opinion, the pendency of
this writ petition for the past 16 years and
the filing of two affidavits on behalf of
the respondents and time already having