# Kailash Singh v. Asstt. Regional Transport Officer and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 563
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-07-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ petition No.2010 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kailash-singh-v-asstt-regional-transport-officer-and-another-39850
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

(termination of Service) Rules 1975-
Compassionate appointment - always to
be treated as permanent appointmenttermination order. Held- illegal.

Held- Para 3

We are of the opinion that the Judgment
of learned single judge which is based on
division bench decisions in Ravi karan
Singh's case needs no interference in
this appeal. However, it will be open to
the appellants, if so advised, to proceed
in accordance with law. The petitioner
respondent no I shall be reinstated in
service forthwith and shall be entitled to
pay including all consequential benefits
as already directed by the learned Single
Judge.
Case law discussed:
1992 (2) AWC 976

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Kailash Singh V. Asstt. Regional Transport Officer and another
563
exercised by Inspector General of Police
and have been delegated by the then
Director
General
of
Police/Inspector
General of Police, U.P. by notification
dated 21/29.3.1999 to Deputy Inspector
General of Police (Personnel), Police
Headquarter, Allahabad, in respect of
non-gazetted officer and employees; and
to Superintendent of Police (Personnel)
U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad in
respect of employees at the level of Head
Constable/Constables from one branch to
another branch. The branch in this
notification includes P.A.C. which has
been constituted as a branch of police in
U.P., members of which are deemed to be
police officer and/or to the Provincial
Police Act, 1861.

7. The power to transfer as such is
vested in Deputy Inspector General
(Personnel), U.P. Police Headquarter,
Allahabad
and
have
been
rightly
exercised by him in transferring petitioner
from Police to P.A.C.

8. The Government Orders are
neither inconsistent nor run contrary to
the scope and object of regulation 525 of
U.P.
Police
Regulations,
and
only
provided for delegation which has not
been restricted by Regulation 525 and as
such the decision cited above are not
applicable to the present case.

9. So far as the medical ground
setup by petitioner, the Court finds that he
is taking treatment as OPD Patient at
Nazareth
Hospital,
Allahabad
for
hypertension since 7.3.2001. Petitioner
has not been given posting by the
competent authority in P.A.C. as yet. He
has a right to represent to the competent
authority in P.A.C. for a suitable posting,
where the facilities of his treatment are
available.

10. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, no case for interference with the
transfer order has been made out. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.2010 of 2002

Kailash Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Regional Transport Officer and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S. P. Kesarwani
S.C.

Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules 1998-R-22Practice
and
procedure-
particular
provisions specified in the Rules- every
one bound to follow- other wise no relief
could
be
granted-
application
for
exemption certificate w/o following the
procedure- Court declined to interfere.

Held- Para 3

It is well settled that where a provision
is made in a statute prescribing the
particular
procedure,
that
particular
procedure has to be followed and in the
event
of
non
compliance
of
that
procedure, no benefit can be claimed by
a person.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
564
(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.)

1. Heard Shri A.K. Dixit, Learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2. The counsel for the petitioner
contended that documents of the vehicle
has been surrendered on 29.1.2000. Our
attention has been drawn to annexure-1 to
the writ petition. A perusal of annexure-1
to the writ petition reveals that said
document is only an application seeking
No Objection Certificate. There is nothing
no record to show that the petitioner has
complied with the provision of Rule 22 of
U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Rule 1998
where
in
the
procedure
has
been
prescribed in the case of withdrawing the
vehicle from use.

3. It is well settled that where a
provision is made in a statute prescribing
the particular procedure, that particular
procure has to be followed and in the
event
of
non
compliance
of
that
procedure, no benefit can be claimed by a
person.

4. In view of above, there is no
infirmity in the order dated 18.6.2002.
We are not inclined to grant any relief to
the writ petition.

5. The writ petition being without
any merit fails and is dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 348 of 2002

Deputy Director General (National Cadet
Corps) and another
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Sanjai Kumar & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shabha Jeet Yadav
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S. P. Kesarwani S.C.
Sri N. L. Pandey

U.P. Temporary Government Servant
(termination of Service) Rules 1975-
Compassionate appointment - always to
be treated as permanent appointmenttermination order. Held- illegal.

Held- Para 3

We are of the opinion that the Judgment
of learned single judge which is based on
division bench decisions in Ravi karan
Singh's case needs no interference in
this appeal. However, it will be open to
the appellants, if so advised, to proceed
in accordance with law. The petitioner
respondent no I shall be reinstated in
service forthwith and shall be entitled to
pay including all consequential benefits
as already directed by the learned Single
Judge.
Case law discussed:
1992 (2) AWC 976

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. K.Sen, C.J.)

Present: For the Appellants:
Shri Shabhajeet Yadav .