# Sita Ram v. Ex.Engineer, Irrigation, Deoria & ors - **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 262 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 1999 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sita-ram-v-ex-engineer-irrigation-deoria-ors-39337 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999 262 The effect of the termination order is that the petitioner has been uprooted. He has put in 25 years of service and he has become overage for any other service . He cannot seek employment anywhere else. He must be having family to support. The employers were satisfied with his work for 25 years. After a employee puts in service of 25 years his services cannot be terminated. Therefore, the law laid down by the apex court in H.C. Puttuswamy (supra) applies to the fact of the present case. The impugned termination order dated 29.6.1994 cannot be upheld for the aforesaid reasons. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of termination dated 29.6.1994 passed by respondent no. 1 Annexure-1 to the writ petition is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on Class IV post and shall pay arrears of salary to the petitioner from 29.6.1994 till the date of this judgement at the rate of Rs. 1675/- per month. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of regularisation of the petitioner on a Class IV post in the light of the observations made in this judgement and shall pass appropriate orders. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgement before respondent no. 1 The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 0 7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 - .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( 5. 6,1*+ - 7+( +21·%/( 5. 6,1*+ - &,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,216 12 2) 6DQW .XPDU RWKHUV « 3HWLWLRQHUV 9HUVXV 7KH &ROOHFWRU 6DKDUDQSXU RWKHUV « 5HVSRQGHQWV 1999 ------ Sita Ram Vs. Ex.Engineer, Irrigation, Deoria & ors. ------ V.M.Sahai, J. 1999 ------ April, 7 2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 263 &RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHUV 0U'KDQ 3UDNDVK &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6& &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH &LYLO VHQVHXVH RI ODXGVSHDNHU E\ FRQVWUXFWLQJ QHZ PDVMLG FDXVLQJ JUHDW KDUDVVPHQW RQFH ULJKW RI UHOLJLRQ LV IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW DW WKH VDPH WLPH ULJKW WR SULYDF\ LV DOVR IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKWERWK PXVW EH UHDG KDUPRQLRXVO\ 2QH PXVW OHDUQ FLYLF VHQVH DQG WR DYRLG FDXVLQJ KDUDVVPHQW WR RWKHU 3DUD DQG Case law discussed. 1998 (8) - SCC- 296 By the Court 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 to 6 are residents of village Asadpur, district Saharanpur. 2. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to respondent no. 1 to stop any construction of a new Masjid in place of the room in question and also to stop use of loudspeaker. 3. We have already held in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43403 of 1998 ( Mohd Sharif Saifi vs State of U.P. & others) decided on 28.1.1999 that it is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 25 of the Constitution of India to construct any house of worship whether it is mosque,church, temple etc. on his own land or any one else's land with the consent of that person. Hence there can be no objection regarding construction of the Mosque and we direct that no one will interfere in the construction of the mosque. 4. We have also issued a humble appeal in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14169 of 1999 (Chhidda Khan Vs State of U.P. and others) decided on 6.4.1999 by which we have appealed to the general public to refrain from utilizing loudspeakers, whether it is for Akhand Ramayan, Azan, Kirtan, Quawwali or public programmes, functions, marriages, or for any such purposes because this is causing a great deal of inconvenience and harassment to the general public, particularly to persons who may be having heart problems and want to get sound rest, students who wish to study, and others who do not wish to be disturbed. 1999 ------ Sant Kumar & others Vs. Collector, Sharanpur & others ------ M. Katju, J. R.K.Singh,J. THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999 264 5. We may further mention that while the right to practice one's religion freely is a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution, the right to privacy is also a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal vs. State of Tamilnadu AIR 1995 SC 264 and Mr. X versus Hospital Z AIR 1998 (8) SCC 296. Hence both these rights must be read harmoniously. 6. In our opinion use of loudspeakers invades- the right to privacy of the citizens. Hence we are of the opinion that the right to religion under Article 25 and the right under Article 21 must be read together. No body has the right to practice religion in a way so as to invade the privacy of others . Hence we again repeat our humble appeal to the citizens to refrain from utilizingloudspeakers, whether it is for Akhand Ramayan, Azan, Kirtan, Quawwali or public programmes, functions, marriages, or for any such purposes etc. as the same causes a great deal of inconvenience and harassment to the general public. We may mention that in England, U.S.A., Canada, etc. people do not even ordinarily blow the horns of their cars, as this is regarded as bad manners since it causes inconvenience to others. We too must learn civic sense in our country, and avoid causing harassment to others. With these observations and directions the writ petition is finally disposed off. 1999 ------ Sant Kumar & others Vs. Collector, Sharanpur & others ------ M. Katju, J. R.K.Singh,J.