# Kiran Pal and others v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 96 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2009-01-29 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 784 of 2009 - **Bench:** Amar Saran, R.N. Misra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kiran-pal-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41374 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India- Art.226Regularisartion of Service and claim of Minimum Pay Scale- Petitioner /Applicant engaged on daily wages basis in Power Corporation- stopped from working- writ seeking direction for regularization as number of post lying vacant -in absence of regularisation Policy or Rules-Court can't grant such relief- so for the claim of minimum basic pay concern-daily wager holds no posthence no question of Basic Pay in absence of Pay Scale-held-learned Single Judge rightly declined to interfere. Held: Para 6 There is nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioner is eligible for consideration for the purposes of regularisation, therefore, in view of the ## Text 96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 unless the order or decision dated 20.6.2006 is modified cannot sustain. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.12.2007 of the Hon'ble Single Judge, insofar as it has granted the aforesaid interim order, is hereby set aside and is modified that in case, the writ petition is allowed, the petitioner may be entitled for all consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with law. 9. However, since the petitionerrespondent was seeking two years further continuance in service and one year has already passed, therefore, we are of the view that it is a case, which ought to have been decided expeditiously. We are informed that the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. Therefore, as also requested by learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the writ petition shall be listed before the appropriate Bench in the first week of December' 2008 and we request the Hon'ble Single Judge to decide the writ petition expeditiously subject to His Lordship's convenience and other business of the Court. Learned counsels for the parties are also granted liberty to make mention before the Hon'ble Court, when the case is listed before the Hon'ble Single Judge. 10. We, however, clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Hon'ble Single Judge shall consider the matter without being prejudiced by observation, if any, made in this judgment. 11. The special appeal is allowed subject to the above observations/directions. No costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J. THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 784 of 2009 Kiran Pal and others ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.P. Srivastava Sri Shishir Prakash Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Constitution of India Art. 226-Quashing of F.I.R.-offence under Section 2/3, Gangsters Act-all the cases referred in F.I.R. relates to minor offences-in one arrest stayed by High Court-hence lodging FIR a colorable exercise of power-held-in Kishan Pal Case-Apex Court restricted interference by High Court as the petitioners can appear before Trail Court-prayer for quashing refused-observation made for disposal of bail application on same day. Held: Para 4 & 5 In the decision of Kishan Pal alias K.P. vs. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (54) ACC, 1015, it has been held that it would not proper in such matters for High Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction as petitioners can always appear before the Court concerned and make submissions there. In this view of the matter, we find no ground for quashing the criminal proceedings under Sections 2/3 of Gangsters Act. 1 All] Kiran Pal and others V. State of U.P. and others 97 Case law discussed: 2006 (54) ACC, 1015 (Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the F.I.R. under sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, P.S. Indira Puram, district Ghaziabad, in Case Crime No. 55/2009. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in the F.I.R. were of preparing forged documents and earning a lot of money by sale of plots on the basis of forged documents. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that five cases were shown against them and in all those cases they have got themselves bailed out and in certain matters of 2008, the arrest of the petitioners was stayed in Criminal Misc. Writ petitions No. 22767 of 2008, 22768 of 2008, 22769 of 2008, 22770 of 2008 and 22771 of 2008. 4. In the decision of Kishan Pal alias K.P. vs. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (54) ACC, 1015, it has been held that it would not proper in such matters for High Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction as petitioners can always appear before the Court concerned and make submissions there. 5. In this view of the matter, we find no ground for quashing the criminal proceedings under Sections 2/3 of Gangsters Act. 6. However, it is directed that if the petitioners appear in the aforesaid case within three weeks before the Court concerned, their prayer for bail may be considered expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of Gangsters Act. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J. THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAY SINGH, J. Special Appeal No. (859) of 2008 Sarvan Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Anees Ahmad Counsel for the Respondents: Sri J.P. Pandey Sri Saurabh Pathak S.C. Constitution of India- Art.226Regularisartion of Service and claim of Minimum Pay Scale- Petitioner /Applicant engaged on daily wages basis in Power Corporation- stopped from working- writ seeking direction for regularization as number of post lying vacant -in absence of regularisation Policy or Rules-Court can't grant such relief- so for the claim of minimum basic pay concern-daily wager holds no posthence no question of Basic Pay in absence of Pay Scale-held-learned Single Judge rightly declined to interfere. Held: Para 6 There is nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioner is eligible for consideration for the purposes of regularisation, therefore, in view of the