# Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 755 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-10-04 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28777 of 1994 - **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39977 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] Mohan Singh V. State of U.P. and others 755 10. Let a copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges within three days. Certified copy of the impugned order may also be returned if demanded by counsel upon furnishing of a typed copy of the same. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.10.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28777 of 1994 Mohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.D. Tripathi Sri M.M. Siddiqui Sri J.K. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- Service Law- Termination order- petitioner was appointed for period of three years on fixed salary-continued even after expiry of the period-strict in accordance with the terms of appointment termination order passed after giving one month prior salary-held- proper- in absence of seniority list- question regarding working of juniors to the petitioner can not be accepted-even the petitioner can approach before Industrial Tribunal- petition dismissed. Held- Para 5 The standing counsel has contended that the services of part time tube well operators are not transferable. He submits that the service of the petitioner has been terminated according to the terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment. He further contends that since the petitioner was not a regular full time tube well operator he was not entitled to salary of full time tube well operator. Lastly, it has been submitted that since the petitioner's appointment was on a particular tube well there is no question of seniority or juniority. Since the tube well operators are appointed against a particular tube well no question of seniority involved in the case. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition arises out of the alleged illegal termination of the petitioner by respondent no. 2 from the post of Tube-well operator by the impugned order, dated 17.6.1994. 3. The petitioner was appointed as part-time Tube-well operator at Tube-well No. 22, at Kirawali, district Agra on fixed monthly salary of Rs.299/- by order, dated 22.7.1988. The terms and conditions of petitioner's appointment as given in his aforesaid appointment order are as under:- "1%& budh fu;qfDr iw.kZr% vLFkk;h gS rFkk dk;Z lurks"ktud ugha ik;s tkus ij ,d ekg dks uksfVl nsdj fdlh Hkh le; lsok,a lekIr dh tk ldrh gSaA 2%& ;g fu;qfDr vko';drkuqlkj mideZ ds fy, gh gksxh dk;Z lurks"ktud ik;s tkus ij gh budh fu;qfDr ij iqu% fopkj fd;k tk,xk A 3%& dk;Z Hkkj xzg.k djus dk dksbZ ;k+=k HkRrk ns; ugha gksxk A" http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 4. The petitioner states that initially he was appointed for a period of three years. The salary of the petitioner was increased from Rs.299/- to Rs.560/- per month w.e.f., 1.12.1991. In paragraph '7' to the writ petition, it is stated that all of a sudden, the boring of the Tube-well, on which the petitioner was working, failed and as such the services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order, dated 17.6.1994 by giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. The contention of the petitioner is that 25 Tube-well operators, who are junior to him, have been retained in service whereas his services have been terminated and as such the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and has also stated that there are several Tube-wells where the posts of Tube-well operators are vacant and the petitioner can be appointed on any of such Tube-wells. 5. The standing counsel has contended that the services of part-time Tube-well operators are not transferable. He submits that the service of the petitioner have been terminated according to the terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment. He further contends that since the petitioner was not a regular full time operator, he was not entitled to salary of full time Tube-well operator. Lastly, it has been submitted that since the petitioner's appointment was on a particular tube-well, there is no question of seniority or juniority. Since the Tube-well operators are appointed against a particular tube-well, no question of seniority involved in the case. 6. From Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it appears that petitioner's service has come to an end on the failure of the Tube-well in pursuance of Government notification issued in 1953. I have perused the impugned order and there appears to be no illegality in the same. On the closure of the place of employment, a person, who is employed particularly for that place, will not continue. 7. Apart from the above, the petitioner is a workman. He has not produced any material before this Court to establish the factum that there are several vacancies in other tube-wells which are in operation. He has also not filed any seniority list in support of his contention that juniors to him are working. The appointment of the petitioner was a fixed term appointment for three years and he continued thereafter in the exigency of work. It does not vest him with any legal right to continue at the place of employment on the failure of the Tubewell itself. 8. In view of the above facts, the petition fails and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD OCTOBER 4, 2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE R.H. ZAIDI, J. Civil Misc. writ petition no. 8683 of 1982 Ramraj ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.D. Misra Counsel for the Respondents: S.C.