# Khushi Ram v. Adhishashi Abhiyanta and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 507
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-07-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36147 of 1991
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khushi-ram-v-adhishashi-abhiyanta-and-others-39996
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
termination of the Services of the
petitioner in terms of the letter of
appointment cannot be said to be
arbitrary or discriminatory.

(Held in para 10)

Case Law referred:
This writ petition is, therefore, devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is
accordingly dismissed.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Khushi Ram V. Adhishashi Abhiyanta and others
507
applying the principle of legitimate
expectation in the facts and circumstances
of the instant case on account of the view
we have taken on the question, it is not
necessary to refer to and consider other
contentions and decisions raised and cited
by the parties. Many of the writ
petitioners participated in the lottery
already held and as such, lottery held
pursuant to order of this Court, need not
be disturbed. However, in respect of
further allotments, it will be open to the
writ petitioners also to participate and the
selections should be made in accordance
with the Rules of 2002.

103. In the result, the questions
having
been
referred
to
us
for
consideration by the Division Bench are
answered in terms of the observations and
answers contained in the foregoing
paragraphs of this judgment. Accordingly,
the writ petitions including the bunch of
connected with petitions stand dismissed
with the aforesaid observations.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36147 of 1991

Khushi Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Nalqoop Khand,
Mainpuri and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Ji Verma
Sri S.U. Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
termination of the Services of the
petitioner in terms of the letter of
appointment cannot be said to be
arbitrary or discriminatory.

(Held in para 10)

Case Law referred:
This writ petition is, therefore, devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is
accordingly dismissed.

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

1. Heard Sri S.U. Khan, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner claims to have been
appointed by the letter of appointment
dated 13th February, 1987 (Annexure-1 to
the writ petition) as Nalkoop Operator at
Tube-well No. 165 in the district of
Mainpuri.

3. A perusal of the letter of
appointment clearly demonstrates that the
appointment of the petitioner is purely
provisional and temporary with a further
rider that it can be terminated at any time
without
any
notice.
The
letter
of
appointment further says that in any case,
the term of appointment will not be
extended beyond three years. It is on the
strength of this letter of appointment the
petitioner was functioning as Tube-well
Operator.

4. By the order dated 25th
November, 1991 (Annexure '2' to the writ
petition), the services of the petitioner
were terminated on the ground that Tubewell No.165 on which the petitioner was
employed has since been abandoned and
is no more functioning. Therefore, the
petitioner's services were not required.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
508
The termination order also says that the
petitioner is being given notice for one
month,
according
to
his
terms
of
appointment, and thereafter his services
will automatically come to an end. This
order was also communicated to the
petitioner by the Ziledar of the area
concerned.

5. It is these orders which are
challenged by the petitioner firstly on the
ground that the services of the petitioner
have not been terminated in accordance
with law, in as much as the termination of
the services of the petitioner is arbitrary
and discriminatory and while terminating
the
services
of
the
petitioner,
the
principles of last come and first go has not
been complied with. It has also been
submitted that many other Tube-wells in
the same district are still functioning and
instead of terminating the services of the
petitioner,
the
respondents
should
accommodate the petitioner in one of
those Tube-well.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon a decision of the learned
single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition
No. 26466 of 1992 decided on 8th July,
1991 wherein the learned single judge has
held as under:

"Even if these wells do not exist in
the village of the petitioner he could not
have been denied his posting on the
vacant post on the failure of the Tubewell No.106. The Tube-well nos.
106,136,57 or 59 are all there in one
group."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon this very decision for the
ground as stated above. It has not been
asserted that the Tube-wells, which,
according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, are operative and situated in
the same area nor the number thereof has
been given in the writ petition. It has also
not been stated as to whether any of the
aforesaid
Tube-well
is
functioning
without any Tube-well Operator. In the
absence of these materials, in my opinion,
the decision relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is not applicable
because that depends upon the facts of
that case.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon three other judgments of
the learned single judge of this court
passed in Writ Petition No. 35425 of
1995, decided on 15th May, 1998, Writ
Petition No. 3051 of 1996, decided on 6th
May, 1997 and Writ Petition No. 9044 of
1996 decided on 30th May, 1997, wherein
the judgment referred above has been
relied upon. A perusal of those judgments
demonstrate that the facts as that of the
present case were not in existence or this
is not clear from the judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Under
these
circumstances,
the
termination of the services of the
petitioner in terms of the letter of
appointment (Annexure- '1' to the writ
petition) cannot be said to be arbitrary or
discriminatory.

9. No other point has been raised or
argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

10. This writ petition is, therefore,
devoid of merits and is liable to be
dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
The interim order dated 10th December,
1991 stands vacated. However, the parties
shall bear their own costs.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Cantonment Board, Meerut V. St. John's School and another
509
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4789 of 1999

Cantonment Board, Meerut ...Petitioner
Versus
St. John's School, 117 Bank Street,
Meerut Cantt. & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Dube
Sri Samir Sharma
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Vivek Chaudhary

Cantonments
Act-Section
87(b)-
the
amount, if any in dispute in the appeal
under section 87 (B) of the Act means
the amount which was in dispute when
the appeal was filed. (Held in para 16)

Amount sought to be deposited is the
amount alleged to be due with accruals,
which was in dispute at the time of filing
of the appeal and not the amount at the
time of hearing or determination of
appeal. The objection of the counsel for
the petitioner is as such over-ruled.
Case Law referred:
1993 (1) SCC 22
1989 (1) SCC 345
1994 (6) SC JT 80
1990 (4) SCC 256
AIR 1966 SC 108
1996 (I) SCC 427
AIR 1979 SC 564
AIR 1931 Madras 55
1974 (2) ACC 393
1975 (2) SCC 175
1988 (4) ACC 402
1981 Lab. I.C. 1015

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Cantonment Board, Meerut has
filed
this
writ
petition
challenging
judgment and order dated 23.11.1998
passed by Additional District Judge,
Meerut by which he has allowed an
appeal
under
section
84
of
the
Cantonments Act, 1924 in short "the Act"
setting aside notice dated 24.3.1988
levying property tax on Bungalow No.
117 Bank Street, Meerut, occupied by St.
John." School, Meerut (in short "the
School").

2. I have heard Sri Samir Sharma
appearing for petitioner and Sri Vivek
Chaudhary for respondent.

3.

The
Executive
Officer,
Cantonment Board issued notice dated
27.6.1987 to St. John's School, Meerut to
revise assessment of tax on property no.
117, Bank Street, Meerut under section 68
of the Act. The Principal of the school in
his objection to the notice, stated that the
entire building is used for educational
purposes, and is thus exempt from paying
any tax whatsoever. No house tax can be
proposed on the said building. He further
stated that no additional building has been
constructed during the period and that no
portion of the building has been given on
hire, nor any rental income is being
derived from the building or any portion
thereof. A notice was issued fixing
27.10.1987 as a date for hearing. The
Principal
attended
the
office
and
requested
to
give
further
date.
Accordingly a notice was given to him on
17.12.1987 by the Executive Officer,
calling upon him to give details and
particulars of the students, as well as
books relating to the income of school.
The Principal sought another date vide his