# Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania (Individual) v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 343
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38976 of 2002
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-gaur-hari-singhania-individual-v-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-kanpur-40100
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
case of the petitioner is squarely covered
by Regulation 370 of Civil Service
Regulations- it gives a right to the
petitioner to get pension even assuming
his resignation is accepted in the month
of December, 1985- the view of the
respondents that the petitioner has put
in less than 20 years of service, is
rejected. ( Held in para)

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania (Individual) V. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur
343
against the life policy of the assessee
which was exempt from the wealth Tax
but this was not disclosed in the wealth
tax return. Only this much was mentioned
in the return that the amount of
Rs.20,500/- was a loan from the L.I.C.
Till the assessment year 1988-99, if the
assessing officer had reason to believe
that net wealth of a person has escaped
assessment due to non disclosure fully
and truly of all material facts necessary
for the assessment of his net wealth, he
could issue the notice for reassessment. In
the present case all the conditions for
reassessing of the assessee as prescribed
under section 17 (1) (a) of the Wealth Tax
Act existed. Hence in our opinion the
reassessment notice was fully justified.

10. In view of the above, we answer
the above question in the affirmative i.e.
against the assessee and in favour of the
department.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38976 of 2002

Moti Lal

...Petitioner
Versus
State
of
U.P.
through
Secretary,
Irrigation Department and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Misra
Sri Shiveesh Gopesh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
case of the petitioner is squarely covered
by Regulation 370 of Civil Service
Regulations- it gives a right to the
petitioner to get pension even assuming
his resignation is accepted in the month
of December, 1985- the view of the
respondents that the petitioner has put
in less than 20 years of service, is
rejected. ( Held in para)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. Petitioner by means of the present
writ petition has prayed for the following
reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay the pension and other
retrial benefits "like gratuity", provident
fund, G.P.F. etc" to the petitioner.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay the interest at the
current rate on the amount of pension and
retrial benefits computed till the date of
actual payment.

iii. Issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble
court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

iv. Allow the writ petition with
costs in favour of the petitioner."

2. The case of the petitioner, as setup in the writ petition, is that the
petitioner was appointed as Tube-well
Operator in the month of June, 1962 but
under the state of mental imbalance he
resigned on 4.12.1985 which though he
purports to have subsequently withdrawn.
But according to the statement made in
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
344
the counter affidavit, before the petitioner
opted for withdrawal of resignation, it
was accepted by the respondents on
31.12.1985. Petitioner thereafter urged
even assuming his resignation to have
been
accepted,
he
is
entitled
for
pensionary benefits as he has put in 21
years of service with the respondents.

3. This fact has been denied by the
respondents in the counter affidavit. It is
stated in para 5 of the counter affidavit
that the petitioner has worked on the post
of Tube-well-Operator from 18.1.1967 to
4.12.1985. According to this statement the
date of resignation, i.e. 4.12.1985, is the
last day of working of the petitioner and
his services are less than 20 years
therefore he cannot qualify for pension.
The respondents in their counter affidavit,
in reply to para 2 of the writ petition have
admitted that for the first time petitioner
was appointed on 22.7.1964 as runner in
Nalkoop Khand-I Aligarh and thereafter
he was appointed afresh on the post of
Tube-well-operator in the same Division
on 18.1.1967. According to the statement
made in the counter affidavit 18.1.1967 is
the relevant date of appointment and if it
is to be taken the relevant date, the
services of the petitioner are less than 20
years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has
relied upon
the Civil Service
Regulations Parts I, IV and X which runs
as under:

Conditions of Qualifying Service
Section III- Second Condition
General Principles

368. Service does not qualify unless the
officer holds a substantive office on
a permanent establishment.

369. An establishment, the duties of
which are not continuous but are
limited to certain fixed periods in
each year, is not a temporary
establishment. Service in such an
establishment, including the period
during which the establishment is
not employed, qualifies; but the
concession of counting as service
the
period
during
which
the
establishment is not employed does
not apply to an officer who was not
on
actual
duty
when
the
establishment was discharged, after
completion of its work, or to an
officer who was not on actual duty
on the first day on which the
establishment
was
given
reemployed.

370. An officer may count continuous
temporary or officiating service
under the Government of Uttar
Pradesh
followed
without
interruption by confirmation in the
same or any other post except-

(i) periods
of
temporary
or
officiating service in a nonpensionable establishment,

(ii) periods of service in a workcharged establishment, and

(iii) periods of service in a post paid
from contingencies.

5. From the perusal of the aforesaid
it appears that the case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by Regulation 370. It
has been admitted by the respondents in
the counter affidavit that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Runner on
22.7.1964 and subsequently followed by
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Moti Lal V. State of U.P. and others
345
regular
appointment
as
Tube-well-
Operator on 18.1.1967 which is not within
the exception of Regulation 370 of Civil
Service Regulations and if the same is not
covered, it gives a right to the petitioner
to get pension even assuming his
resignation is accepted in the month of
December, 1985. No other point was
urged. The view of the respondents that
the petitioner has put in less than 20 years
of service, is rejected.

6. In view of the aforesaid the writ
petition deserves to be allowed and is
hereby allowed. The respondents are
directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for pension in the light of the
observations made in this judgement from
the date of production of certified copy of
this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9 JANUARY, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41675 of 2001

Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
...Petitioner
Versus
Raja Balwant Singh College, Agra and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.N. Tewari
Sri Vivek Misha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Suresh Singh
Sri A.K. Goel
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Termination of Temporary employees-
temporary employees have no right to
the post- The termination of services is
not punitive and hence it is valid- When
there is a conflict between law and
equity it is the law which is to prevail, in
accordance with the latin, maxima "dura
lex sed lex," which means, 'the law is
hard but it is the law'.

Held -para 13)

When there is a conflict between law and
equity it is the law which is to prevail, in
accordance with the Latin maxim 'dura
lex sed lex,' which means, 'the law is
hard but it is the law.
Case law referred:
AIR 1982 SC 1107 in 1999 (2) SCC 317
1997 (2) LLJ 677, 1996 (1) SCC 773
AIR 2002 SC 3088, AIR 1975 SC 1087

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

1. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
order
of
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 27.4.2001
copy of which is Annexure 10 to the writ
petition.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties.

3.

The
petitioner
(hereinafter
referred to as I.C.A.R.) is a society
registered under Societies Registration
Act. The Minister for Agriculture is exofficio President of the Society and it is
wholly funded by the Govt. of India. As
stated in para 3 of the writ petition, the
society was set up for undertaking
scientific research in Agriculture, Animal
Husbandry and other allied subjects. The
research work is done by various
institutions situated all over the country.
The number of scientists and helping staff
and their qualifications are fixed by the
I.C.A.R. The I.C.A.R. does not make