# Town Area Committee, Jhunsi, Allahabad & Anr v. Rajendra Bind & Ors

- **Citation:** Special Appeal No. 219 of 2015
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-19
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 219 of 2015
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, Suneet Kumar, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/town-area-committee-jhunsi-allahabad-anr-v-rajendra-bind-ors-45159
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Durga Singh, Sri J.K. Tiwari

A. Service - Termination - Contempt -
Jurisdiction - The question referred to the
Court was whether the judgment passed in
Rajendra Prasad Singh's case, which has been
affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal
No. 1211 of 2009, is correct or not?

The Court observed that termination orders
passed in the year 1992 were set aside by
learned Single Judge in three different writ
petitions. One of them being the Rajendra
Prasad Singh's case, against which special
appeal filed by the State was also dismissed, as
such, order of setting aside the termination
order attained finality. Subsequently, appellants
had passed termination order while considering
the representation filed by respondent on the
direction of Contempt Court. These orders were
passed without even taking note that earlier
termination orders were set aside and the issue
brought before the authority was confined to
payment of salary. There was no issue of
termination of service before the authority,
therefore, there was no justification in passing
the termination order on the representation filed
by the respondents. (Para 22)
The Court held that the common termination
order passed in 1992 (on 21.03.1992) was bad
in law and was rightly set aside on the ground
that the GO dated 06.12.1991 was not related
to writ petitioners as they were neither daily
wagers nor working on work charge basis. It
was related to future employments and services
of the writ petitioners could not be terminated
in view of the said GO. (Para 28)
In the light of the above observations, the view
taken by the learned Single Judge in Rajendra
Prasad Singh's case, which has been affirmed by
the Division Bench, was held to be a correct
view.

Appeal dismissed. Reference answered. (E-4)

Appeal against judgment and orders dated
19.02.2019 and 01.04.2015, passed in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23102 of

## Text

3-5 All. Town Area Committee, Jhunsi, Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Bind & Ors.
1149
(2020)03-05ILR A1149
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Special Appeal No. 219 of 2015
With
Special Appeal Defective No. 31 of 2003

Town Area Committee, Jhunsi, Allahabad
& Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Bind & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri A.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Durga Singh, Sri J.K. Tiwari

A. Service - Termination - Contempt -
Jurisdiction - The question referred to the
Court was whether the judgment passed in
Rajendra Prasad Singh's case, which has been
affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal
No. 1211 of 2009, is correct or not?

The Court observed that termination orders
passed in the year 1992 were set aside by
learned Single Judge in three different writ
petitions. One of them being the Rajendra
Prasad Singh's case, against which special
appeal filed by the State was also dismissed, as
such, order of setting aside the termination
order attained finality. Subsequently, appellants
had passed termination order while considering
the representation filed by respondent on the
direction of Contempt Court. These orders were
passed without even taking note that earlier
termination orders were set aside and the issue
brought before the authority was confined to
payment of salary. There was no issue of
termination of service before the authority,
therefore, there was no justification in passing
the termination order on the representation filed
by the respondents. (Para 22)
The Court held that the common termination
order passed in 1992 (on 21.03.1992) was bad
in law and was rightly set aside on the ground
that the GO dated 06.12.1991 was not related
to writ petitioners as they were neither daily
wagers nor working on work charge basis. It
was related to future employments and services
of the writ petitioners could not be terminated
in view of the said GO. (Para 28)
In the light of the above observations, the view
taken by the learned Single Judge in Rajendra
Prasad Singh's case, which has been affirmed by
the Division Bench, was held to be a correct
view.

Appeal dismissed. Reference answered. (E-4)

Appeal against judgment and orders dated
19.02.2019 and 01.04.2015, passed in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23102 of
2009.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamsheri, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today
on behalf of respondent, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.K.
Trivedi on behalf of the appellants, Shri
J.K. Tiwari on behalf of respondent nos.1
to 6 and Ms. Subhash Rathi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
respondent no.7.

3. The present Larger Bench is
constituted under the order of Hon'ble the
Chief Justice in pursuance of the following
questions referred by a Division Bench of
this Court, vide order dated 28.9.2017,
passed in Special Appeal No.219 of 2015
and Special Appeal (Defective) No.31 of
2003 :-
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. "Whether the judgment of
learned Single Judge passed in Rajendra
Prasad Singh's case, which has been
affirmed by the Division Bench in Special
Appeal No.1211 of 2009, is correct or not.

2. Whether in absence of any post
in
the
establishment/department
in
question, the appointment can be sustained
or not.

3. Whether in the absence of post
directives can be issued for ensuring
payment of salary."

4. These cases have chequered history
and before going into the questions referred
above, it is necessary to consider the facts
of the present case. From the record
available, facts of the case are as follows :-

5. The respondents/writ petitioners
were appointed on temporary basis by
individual
appointment
letters
dated
1.4.1990 by the Town Area Committee,
Allahabad under the order issued by the
then Chairman, Town Area Committe,
Jhunsi, Allahabad, on the post of Helper for
the purpose of maintenance of tube wells,
which
were
transferred
from
the
department
of
Jal
Nigam.
It
was
specifically mentioned in their appointment
letters that it would be subject to the
approval of the Committee.

6. The said appointments were duly
approved in the meeting dated 25.4.1990,
conducted under the chairmanship of the
then Chairman, Town Area Committe,
Jhunsi, Allahabad.

7. The State Government issued
Government
Order
dated
6.12.1991/24.12.1991 whereby ban was
imposed on appointment of any person as
daily wager or on work charge basis by the
Nagar Palika Nagar Nigam Department. On
the basis of said ban, the services of the
respondents/writ
petitioners
were
terminated by the Town Area Committee,
Jhunsi, Allahabad, under a common order
dated 21.3.1992.

8. The respondents/writ petitioners
namely Babu Lal, Anis Ahmad and Ram
Lal approached this Court by way of filing
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1093 of 1992
which was allowed by an order dated
8.12.1995 whereby their termination orders
were set aside. For reference, the said order
is reproduced hereinafter :-

"The petitioners have challenged
the order dated 21.3.1992 annexure No.8 to
the writ petition whereby petitioner's
employments
were
terminated.
The
petitioners contend in the writ petition that
they were appointed in various posts by
order dated 1.4.1990 on temporary basis
and started discharging their duties. Such
appointment was duly approved by the
Town Area Committee, Jhunsi in its
meeting held on 25.4.1990. Thereafter, by
order dated 21.3.1992 at Annexure No.8 to
the writ petition the petitioners' services
were terminated and hence the present writ
petition.

Counter Affidavit was filed by the
respondent no.1 and 2, but no counter
affidavit was filed on behalf of the
respondent no.3.

After hearing the parties and
considering the materials available on
record I find that the impugned order of
termination in respect of the petitioners'
services was passed in view of the fact that
no
clarification
was
given
by
the
respondent no.3 in spite of the fact that
such clarification was sought for by the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 as to whether the
petitioners' employment are to continue in
3-5 All. Town Area Committee, Jhunsi, Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Bind & Ors.
1151
spite of the Government Order dated
6.12.1991.

Upon considering the material I
find that the Government Order dated
6.12.1991 does not relate to the petitioners
as they are not daily wager or on work
charge basis and further the said order
relates to future appointment. In the
circumstances, the petitioners' employment
already made on temporary basis could not
be terminated in view of the said
Government Order.

In the aforesaid circumstances,
there being justification in passing the
impugned order of termination dated
21.3.1992 the said order is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and
is allowed. There will be no order as to
costs."

(emphasis supplied)

9. As per the record available, no
special appeal was filed against the order
dated 8.12.1995, as such, the order passed
by
the
learned
Single
Judge
dated
8.12.1995, has attained its finality.

10. Ramesh Bind, Rajendra Bind,
Bhanu Pratap Singh, Paras Nath, Kishore
Kumar, Ram Nath & Raghvendra Singh
(respondents/writ
petitioners)
also
challenged their termination order by way
of filing Writ Petition No.10902 of 1992,
which was also allowed by an order dated
29.7.2002 in terms of the earlier judgment
and order dated 8.12.1995. The said order
is also reproduced hereinafter :-

"Shri V.K. Gupta appears on
behalf of the petitioners. Shri S.P. Gaur has
not appear on behalf of the respondent.

Shri V.K. Gupta contended that
the controversy involved in this writ
petition is exactly the same and is covered
by
the
decision
given
in
W.P.
No.10903/1992, Babu Lal and others Vs.
Town Area Committee, Jhunsi and others
decided on 8.12.95 by this Court.

Heard and perused the records of
the writ petition.

This writ petition is disposed of
finally on the same terms and conditions
given in judgment dated 8.12.95, Babu Lal
and others Vs. Town Area Committee
Jhunsi and others."

(emphasis supplied)

11. Belatedly, the special appeal was
filed against the order dated 29.7.2002
which was once dismissed in default,
however, restored and is also listed in the
present
bunch
as
Special
Appeal
(Defective) No.31 of 2003.

12. Rajendra Bind and 5 others
(respondents/writ petitioners) approached
this Court by way of filing a Civil Misc.
Contempt Writ Petition No.2632 of 2005
for violation of order dated 29.7.2002,
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.10902 of 1992. The said
contempt petition was disposed of by order
dated 21.8.2006, which is reproduced
hereinafter :-

"The applicants contend that the
order dated 29.7.2002 continues to be
violated as they have not been paid their
salary. The order which was issued in Writ
Petition No.10903 of 1992 was for
quashing of the order of termination
whereby the services of the employees of
the town area Jhunsi were terminated. The
applicant's writ petition was also disposed
of on the same terms and conditions. There
is no specific direction for payment of any
past salary or any such other payments and
as such, it would be appropriate that the
applicants, approach the Chairman, Nagar
Panchayat Jhunsi, Allahabad with a fresh
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application for clearance of their dues
which shall be considered and disposed of
preferably within 3 months of the date of
production of the same alongwith a
certified copy of this order.

The
contempt
petition
is
consigned to records with the aforesaid
observations."

(emphasis supplied)

13. One of the employee namely
Rajendra Pratap Singh, who was aggrieved
by his termination order, filed another Writ
Petition No.32445 of 1992, which was
allowed, vide order dated 21.8.2009. For
reference, the said order is reproduced
hereinafter :-

"This case was on cause list on
19.8.2009 and on the request of the learned
counsel for the petitioner was adjourned
for 20.8.2009 and then for today, but today
also none appeared for the petitioner.
Learned standing counsel representing
respondent no.3 is present. I have perused
the record.

Aggrieved by the order dated
21.8.1992 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition)
the under Article 226 of the Constitution
seeking writ of certiorari quashing the said
order whereby the Chairman, Nagar
Kshetra Samiti Jhunsi, Allahabad has
terminated his services from the post of
Naib Moharrir. From the facts stated in the
writ petition, it appears that on purely
temporary basis on 1.4.1990 in the pay
scale off Rs.305-330 subject to approval by
body. The aforesaid appointment of the
petitioner was later on approved by the
Committee on 25.4.1990 (Annexure 2 to the
writ petition). Thereafter, by order dated
1.9.1991, the petitioner was promoted with
effect from 1.9.1991 in the pay scale of
Rs.325-475 and the said promotion was
also approved the Committee on 13.1.192.
The district Magistrate, Allahabad vide
letter dated 24.12.1991. However, informed
all local bodies within Allahabad District
that as per the Government Order dated
16.12.1991., no person should be employed
on daily wage basis and pursuant thereto
the impugned order has been passed.

Even the facts stated above, it is
evident
that
the petitioner
was not
appointed on daily wage basis. It is also
not the case of the respondent 1 and 2 that
his appointment was illegal or contrary to
the
statute.
In
the
circumstances,
termination of the services of the petitioner
pursuant of the Government Order dated
16.12.1991 cannot sustain.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
21.08.1992 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition
for all consequential benefits. No costs. "

(emphasis supplied)

14. The said order was challenged by
the appellant - Town Area Committee,
Jhunsi, Allahabad, by filing Special Appeal
No.1211 of 2009, which was dismissed by
this Court, vide order dated 18.11.2009
with the following observations :-

Heard Shri V.K. Dwivedi, learned
counsel for appellant. Shri Pankaj Agarwal
has entered appearance on behalf of
petitioner-respondent.

By the judgment dated 21.8.2009
under challenge in this Special Appeal,
learned Single Judge has found that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Peon
on temporary basis on 1.4.1990 in the pay
scale of Rs.305-330 subject to approval of
the Committee constituted by Local Body.
The appointment was approved by the
Committee on 25.4.1990 and thereafter by
the order dated 1.9.1991, the petitioner was
promoted w.e.f. 1.9.1991 in the pay scale of
Rs. 325-475. This promotion was also
3-5 All. Town Area Committee, Jhunsi, Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Bind & Ors.
1153
approved by the Committee on 13.1.1992.
The Town Area Committee, by the order
dated 21.8.1992, to give effect to the
Government
Order
dated
16.12.1991,
circulated to the local bodies by the
District Magistrate on 24.12.1991 to
dispense with the services of daily waged
employees, terminated the services of the
petitioner. The Court found that the
petitioner's appointment was neither illegal
nor contrary to the rules. He was not
appointed on daily wages and was not
covered by the Government Order dated
16.12.1991.

Shri
V.K.
Dwivedi,
learned
counsel for appellant states that the
petitioner was earlier an employee of Jal
Sansthan and that in the year 1991 there
was only 14 sanctioned posts. The
petitioner was appointed in addition to the
sanctioned post.

The appointment order dated
1.4.1990 would show that the petitioner
was appointed on the post of peon to
maintain the tubewell on temporary basis,
and his services were thereafter confirmed.

We do not find that learned
Single Judge has committed any error of
facts and law in dismissing the writ
petition.

The Special Appeal is dismissed."

(emphasis supplied)

15. Though the learned Single Judge
as well as Division Bench had not noticed
the earlier judgment, however, reasoning
given by the learned Single Judge which
was upheld by Division Bench was same as
given by earlier Single Bench.

16. In pursuance of the order dated
21.8.2006 passed in contempt petition, the
respondents/ writ petitioners approached
the District Panchayat, Jhunsi, Allahabad,
for ventilating their grievances regarding
the non-payment of their salary. The
Chairman,
Nagar
Panchayat,
Jhunsi,
Allahabad, vide order dated 29.10.2008
while
considering
the
representation,
terminated
the
services
of
the
respondents/writ petitioners on the ground
that their initial appointments were based
on forged documents vide individual
orders.

17. Another contempt petition was
filed in the year 2007 being Contempt
Petition No.2284 of 2007 which was
disposed of, vide order dated 5.1.2019 on
the ground that decision was already taken.

18.

Rajendra
Bind
&
others
(respondents/writ petitioners) approached
this Court by way of filing Writ A
No.23102 of 2009, challenging their
termination order dated 29.10.2008. The
said writ petition was allowed by the
learned Single Judge, vide order dated
19.2.2015 and the impugned termination
order dated 29.10.2008 was quashed. The
relevant part of the order is reproduced
hereinafter :-

"In the Counter Affidavit, it has
been sought to be urged
that the
appointment of the petitioners was made
without any sanction of the appropriate
Government. It has further been contended
that the petitioners had been engaged to
perform functions only during the pendency
of the 'Maha Kumbh Mela'. However, none
of these contentions appear to be borne out
from the orders of appointment and in any
view of the matter do not appear to have
been urged in defence in the earlier
litigation taken before this Court.

This Court is constrained to
record its conclusion that the petitioners
were never confronted with the adverse
material nor were they afforded any
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opportunity of hearing prior to the making
of the impugned order. Insofar as their
appointments were concerned, no such plea
was urged by the respondents in the earlier
round of litigation. For all the aforesaid
reasons, this Court finds that the impugned
order dated 29th October, 2008 cannot be
sustained.

Accordingly, this writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 29th
October, 2008 is hereby quashed. The
petitioners shall be entitled to resume work
on their posts and be paid salary and other
emoluments regularly in accordance with
law."

(emphasis supplied)

19. The order dated 19.2.2015 (passed
in Writ A No.23102 of 2009 - Rajendra
Bind & ors. vs. Town Area Committee &
others) was challenged before the Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal
No.219 of 2015. As earlier mentioned, the
Special (Defective) No.31 of 2003 was also
tagged. The learned Division Bench while
considering
the
appeal
made
the
abovementioned reference, which is under
consideration before this Larger Bench.

20. From the facts as mentioned
above, it is evident that :-

(i) The initial termination orders
passed in the year 1992 were set aside by
the learned Single Judge in three writ
petitions bearing Writ Petition Nos.10902,
10903 of 1992 and 32445 of 1992 by
orders dated 8.12.1995, 29.7.2002 and
21.8.2009 respectively. One of the special
appeal filed against the said order was
dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2009 and
another special appeal was filed belatedly,
it was initially dismissed in default. Later
on the appeal was restored which is listed
along with the present bunch. One of the
order passed by learned Single Judge was
not even challenged. The crux is that the
initial termination orders were set aside on
merit.

(ii) The second round of litigation
was initiated when the respondents/writ
petitioners approached the Contempt Court
by way of filing a contempt petition
demanding their salary which was not paid.
The said contempt petition was disposed of
with liberty to approach the appellants for
their redressal of grievances.

(iii) When the representations
were
moved,
the
appellants
without
considering that the termination orders
passed earlier were already set aside and
special appeal was also dismissed, and as
such, order of this Court had attained
finality, acted beyond the directions passed
by
the
Contempt
Court
and
again
terminated the respondents/writ petitioners
on
the
ground
that
their
initial
appointments
were
based
on
forged
document.

(iv) The said order ex-facie was
beyond the powers of the appellants. There
was no occasion for the appellants to pass
such order on the representation moved by
the
respondents/writ
petitioners
in
pursuance of the order passed by the
learned Contempt Court.

(v) The allegation of forged
document was neither placed before the
Court earlier nor any documents were ever
confronted with the writ petitioners in
earlier round of litigation.

(vi)
The
issues,
such
as
appointment beyond the sanctioned post
and the initial appointment was illegal, has
no relevance in the present facts and
circumstances, as the order of initial
appointment had already been confirmed
way back in the year 1995.

(vii) The entire exercise of the
appellants
by
terminating
the
3-5 All. Town Area Committee, Jhunsi, Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Bind & Ors.
1155
respondents/writ petitioners in the year
2008 was without jurisdiction, therefore,, it
was an illegal order, which is unsustainable
in the eyes of law also.

(viii) The appellants have acted
arbitrarily by terminating the services of
the respondents/writ petitioners when they
approached for their demand of salary.

(ix) Appellants could not interfere
with the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, which was upheld by the Division
Bench of this Court in the garb of contempt
proceedings.

21. Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants has tried to convince the Bench
that the initial appointments of the
respondents/writ petitioners was itself bad
as the Chairman had no power to appoint
the respondents/writ petitioners. In support
of his submission, he relied upon the
United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914.
However, on a pointed query, raised by the
Bench, whether the appellants had power to
pass termination orders while considering
the representation pursuant to the order
passed by the Contempt Court? Learned
Senior Counsel was unable to justify the
action taken by the appellants.

22. Termination orders passed in the
year 1992 were set aside by learned Single
Judge in three different writ petitions. One
of the special appeal filed by the State was
also dismissed, as such, order of setting
aside the termination order attained finality.
Subsequently,
appellants
had
passed
termination order while considering the
representation filed by respondent on the
direction of this Court (Contempt Court).
These orders were passed without even
taking note that earlier termination orders
were set aside and the issue brought before
the authority was confined to payment of
salary. There was no issue of termination of
service before the authority, therefore, there
was
no
justification
in
passing
the
termination order on the representation
filed by the respondents. We are of the
definite view that the appellants have acted
illegally and in arbitrary manner.

23. In view of the above discussion,
we do not find any illegality and infirmity
in the judgment and order passed by the
learned
Single
Judge
whereby
the
termination orders passed in the year 2008,
were set aside. Accordingly, the Special
Appeal No.219 of 2015 is dismissed.

24. In Re:- Special Appeal Defective
No.31 of 2003 - In this special appeal,
appellants have questioned judgment and
order dated 29.7.2002 passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10902 of
1992 whereby common termination order
dated 21.3.1992 has been set aside qua the
writ petitioners. The writ petition was
allowed in same terms and conditions given
in the judgment and order dated 8.12.1995
passed in Writ Petition No.1093 of 1992.

25. As already noted, the said
common termination order was earlier
challenged in the Writ Petition No.1093 of
1992 and the same was allowed and
termination order dated 21.3.1992 was set
aside, vide order dated 8.12.1995 qua the
writ petitioners. Learned Single Judge held
that :- "Upon considering the material I
find that the Government Order dated
6.12.1991 does not relate to the petitioners
as they are not daily wager or on work
charge basis and further the said order
relates to future appointment. In the
circumstances, the petitioners' employment
already made on temporary basis could not
be terminated in view of the said
Government Order. In the aforesaid
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances, there being justification in
passing the impugned order of termination
dated 21.3.1992 the said order is hereby
quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. There will be no
order as to costs." This order remain
unchallenged.

26.

Similarly,
the
common
termination order dated 21.8.1992 was
challenged in Writ Petition No.32445 of
1992 also. Learned Single Judge, vide
judgment and order dated 21.8.2009
quashed the said termination order qua the
writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge
held that "it is evident that the petitioner
was not appointed on daily wage basis. It is
also not the case of the respondent 1 and 2
that his appointment was illegal or
contrary
to
the
statute.
In
the
circumstances, termination of the services
of
the
petitioner
pursuant
of
the
Government
Order
dated
16.12.1991
cannot sustain". Against the order, a
Special
Appeal
1211
of
2009
was
preferred,
however,
the
same
was
dismissed on 18.11.2009. The Division
Bench held that "The appointment order
dated 1.4.1990 would show that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of
peon to maintain the tubewell on temporary
basis, and his services were thereafter
confirmed. We do not find that learned
Single Judge has committed any error of
facts and law in dismissing the writ
petition. The Special Appeal is dismissed".
The said judgment and order was not
challenged further.

27. Now the appellants are trying to
reopen the case. The appellants have failed
to point out any error in the impugned
order as well as in the consistent view
taken by Single Benches and Division
Bench
of
this
Court
that
common
termination order dated 21.3.1992 was bad
in law.

28. We are of the considered opinion
that view taken by learned Single Bench
and Division Bench of this Court is correct.
The common termination order was bad in
law and rightly set aside on the ground that
the Government Order dated 6.12.1991 was
not related to writ petitioners as they were
neither daily wagers nor working on work
charge basis. The Government Order dated
6.12.1991
was
related
to
future
employments and services of the writ
petitioners could not be terminated in view
of the said Government Order.

29. Accordingly, the Special Appeal
Defective No.31 of 2003 is dismissed.

30. While dismissing the appeal, we
answer the reference as follows :-

(a) Referred question no.1 -
"Whether the judgment of learned Single
Judge passed in Rajendra Prasad Singh's
case, which has been affirmed by the
Division Bench in Special Appeal No.1211
of 2009, is correct or not" -- We have
dismissed Special Appeal Defective No.31
of 2003 by present judgment and affirmed
the view taken by learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.1093 of 1992, Writ
Petition No.10902 of 1992, Writ Petition
No.32445 of 1992 as well as view taken by
Division Bench in Special Appeal No.1211
of 2009 that common termination order
dated 21.8.1992 was bad in law, therefore,
the view taken by the learned Single Judge
in Rajendra Prasad Singh's case (Supra),
which has been affirmed by the Division
Bench in Special Appeal No.1211 of 2019
is a correct view.

(b) Referred question no.2 -
"Whether in absence of any post in the
3-5 All. The General Manager (Personnel), Uco Bank, Kolkata & Ors. Vs. Dheeraj Kumar Dixit 1157
establishment/department in question, the
appointment can be sustained or not"
&

Referred
question
no.3
-
"Whether in the absence of post directives
can be issued for ensuring payment of
salary." - So far as the question nos.2 and 3
are concerned, there is no need to answer
these questions as the issues do not arise in
the facts and circumstances of the present
case.

31. The reference is answered,
accordingly.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1157
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 982 of 2002

The General Manager (Personnel), Uco
Bank, Kolkata & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Dheeraj Kumar Dixit ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Manoj Misra, Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey,
Sri V.K. Srivastava, Sri Virendra Kumar
Srivastava, Sri R.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri D.S.P. Singh

A. Service - Compassionate appointment -
The Court in the writ petition struck down
Clauses 7 and 8 of the Scheme for Recruitment
of Dependents of Deceased Employee on
Compassionate Ground, providing guidelines for
the recruitment, framed by the Bank, while
considering
the
case
of
the
petitionerrespondent for compassionate appointment.
While allowing the present appeal the Court
reversed the judgment and held as follows.

B.
The
ground
which
can
justify
compassionate appointment is the penury
condition of the deceased. And while
considering
penury
condition
for
compassionate appointment, the income
of the bereaved family from various
sources including the gratuity, pension
etc. has to be taken into account - The
total income of the family of the deceased was
more than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of
the
deceased,
therefore
the
petitionerrespondent was not eligible for appointment on
compassionate ground in the bank, as per the
scheme of the Bank. (Para 4, 6, 9, 10, 12)

Appeal allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. St. of Har. & ors.,
JT 1994 (3) SC 525 (Para 6)

2. L.I.C. Vs. Asha Ram Chandra Ambedkar &
anr., JT 1994 (2) SC 183 (Para 6)

3. State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. Vs. Shashi
Kumar, in Civil Suit No. 988 of 2019 dated
16.01.2019 (Para 9, 12)

Appeal against judgment and order dated
31.07.2002, passed in Writ Petition No.
23899 of 2000.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.
&
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey,
learned counsel for the appellant.

2. None appears on behalf of the
respondent.

3. This special appeal has been
preferred
by
the
General
Manager
(Personnel) of UCO Bank, Kolkata, and the
Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Bhelpura,