# Jai Ram v. The State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 377 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-03-05 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Application No. 41092 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-ram-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-40113 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Act-226-unauthorised occupier/squatting the public road the vegetable sellers without any valid licence can not occupier the public place direction issued for immediate removed and also to see in future again they may not occupy if desirous it is open them to approach before the nagar mahapalika for valid licence some may be granted keeping various consideration including free flow of traffic. Held- Para 2 http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 378 This means that such persons who were illegally occupying one place have now started illegally occupying another place. In our opinion this cannot be permitted. One can occupy public land only with the permission/licence form the authority concerned. Held- Para 4 We make it clear that persons who wish to sell vegetables, grain and/or other items (whether in wholesale or retail) cannot occupy public land for doing so without permission or licence of the authority concerned. They may make applications to the Nagar Nigam or the other concerned authority for this purpose and it is for the Nagar Nigam or such authority, at its discretion, to grant permission at a suitable place for such persons keeping in view various considerations including the free flow of traffic, requirements of the people in the locality etc. and on payment of tehbazari charges as fixed by the said authority. ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Jai Ram V. The State of U.P. and others 377 counsel that we will not deliver judgement for a few days so that if he wishes to file an affidavit in support of his oral submission he can do so. But, he has not filed an affidavit till today. Hence we cannot take the above oral submission into consideration, which is not supported by any affidavit. Moreover we asked learned standing counsel that even assuming that the said DPC had found the petitioner unfit we would like to know what was the material on which the DPC found him unfit for promotion. Learned standing counsel could not inform us what was the material on which the DPC found the petitioner unfit. No adverse entry or any other adverse material to the petitioner was brought to our notice. We can therefore, presume that even assuming that the said DPC found the petitioner unfit for the promotion it was only on the basis that there was an enquiry pending against him in which he was subsequently exonerated. Hence even assuming that the earlier DPC found the petitioner unfit for promotion the basis for formation of the said opinion has disappeared after the petitioner was exonerated in the enquiry. 8. Hence we direct that the petitioner shall be treated as having been promoted as Superintending Engineer form the date when respondent no.3 was promoted and shall be treated as senior to him. Since the respondent no.3 is presently functioning as Chief Engineer on officiating basis and as senior to respondent no.3. 9. It is not necessary to quash the promotion of respondent no.3 as Chief Engineer since we are informed there are more vacancies on the post of Chief Engineer on which the petitioner can be promoted. The petitioner shall be given these promotions with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary. Allowances etc. which must be paid to him within two months. Petition is allowed No orders as to cost. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.3.2003. BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA,.J. Civil Misc. Application No. 41092 of 2003 Sadhna Upadhyaya ...Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. through The Chief Secretary Govt. of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicant: Sadhna Upadhyaya (In Person) Mr. S.S. Upadhyaya Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Q.H. Siddiqui S.C. Constitution of India, Act-226-unauthorised occupier/squatting the public road the vegetable sellers without any valid licence can not occupier the public place direction issued for immediate removed and also to see in future again they may not occupy if desirous it is open them to approach before the nagar mahapalika for valid licence some may be granted keeping various consideration including free flow of traffic. Held- Para 2 http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 378 This means that such persons who were illegally occupying one place have now started illegally occupying another place. In our opinion this cannot be permitted. One can occupy public land only with the permission/licence form the authority concerned. Held- Para 4 We make it clear that persons who wish to sell vegetables, grain and/or other items (whether in wholesale or retail) cannot occupy public land for doing so without permission or licence of the authority concerned. They may make applications to the Nagar Nigam or the other concerned authority for this purpose and it is for the Nagar Nigam or such authority, at its discretion, to grant permission at a suitable place for such persons keeping in view various considerations including the free flow of traffic, requirements of the people in the locality etc. and on payment of tehbazari charges as fixed by the said authority. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. This is an application praying that the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad be directed to remove the persons who are illegally squatting on /occupying the Bank road for selling vegetables (whether on retail or wholesale basis). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the Division bench decision of this Court in Sanjay Agarwal V. Nagar Palika, Allahabad being writ petition no. 3119 of 1987 decided on 20.4.1999 copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By that judgement the persons who were squatting illegally on Katra road were directed to shift to some other place. It appears that following the said decision those persons have now started illegally squatting on/occupying the Bank road. This means that such persons who were illegally occupying one place have now started illegally occupying another place. In our opinion this cannot be permitted. One can occupy public land only with the permission/licence form the authority concerned. We are informed by Sri Q.H. Siddiqui learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad that the Nagar Nigam Allahabad has not permitted such persons who are occupying/ squatting on the Bank road to do so. We are further informed that this morning the Nagar Nigam officers came to remove such illegal occupiers/squatters on Bank road, but such officials were not given police help and in fact the Nagar Nigam officials as well as the petitioner were attacked by the illegal occupiers/squatters on the Bank road. 3. We therefore, direct the S.S.P. Allahabad the respondent no.5 to give police help to the Nagar Nigam officials for removing the persons who are illegally occupying/squatting on Bank road. 4. The petitioner has stated that such illegal occupiers/squatters were removed four times earlier, but every time they came back and squatted on the Bank road again. The district administration should see to it that this is not repeated. We make it clear that persons who wish to sell vegetables, grain and/or other items (whether in wholesale or retail) cannot occupy public land for doing so without permission or licence of the authority concerned. They may make applications to the Nagar Nigam or the other concerned authority for this purpose and it is for the Nagar Nigam or such authority, at its discretion, to grant permission at a suitable place for such persons keeping in view various considerations including the http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Sadhna Upadhyaya V. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary Govt. of U.P. and others 379 free flow of traffic, requirements of the people in the locality etc. and on payment of tehbazari charges as fixed by the said authority. On the application of such persons the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad or the concerned authority shall pass appropriate orders keeping in made the considerations referred to above. 5. Let a copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddiqui today on payment of usual charges. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.2.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2603 of 2001 Ram Chandra Pathak ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. through Secretary and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.K. Burman Sri I.R. Singh Sri R.K. Ojha Sri K.C. Shukla Sri Ranjeet Saxena Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sameer Sharma S.C. U.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (other than officer) Service Regulation 1981- (Regulation 4 (1)- employees of U.P. Govt. Roadways department- after the joining with Corporation have to give their option within one month from absorption- these who never given any option availed the benefits of E.P.F. for long period- till their retirement- govt. not deposited any amount, towards contribution- not entitled for pension. Held Para 22 In the present case on the absorption of an employee holding non-pensionable post in the Corporation, obligation of the State Government came to an end. These employees became employees of the Corporation and started subscribing to the EPF after transfer of the fund, from their account to EPF. They became members of the employees provident fund. The State Government was not required to contribute towards their pension fund as in the case of employees who were holding, pensionable post. Their rights as such crystallized on the date of their absorption in the Corporation in the year 1982. Now after their retirement, having received the retrial benefits and having ceased the relationship as employees of the corporation they cannot agitate their rights after long period of the time. They form a different class than the employees of the State Government holding pensionable posts on the date of absorption. Case law discussed: 1992 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C.-242 1991 (2) SCC-141 1990 (4) SCC-207 1997 (1) UPLBEC 439 1992 (1) UPLBEC- 242 1999 (82) FLR-174 1991 (Supply) SCC (II) 141 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.) 1. By the aforesaid batch of writ petitions, the employees of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, retired from non-pensionable post, have once again approached this court with prayers directing respondents to award pension and other pensionary benefits, after taking back employees share of provident fund from them. They have also claimed