SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(SC) 32

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
16th April 1956
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, SINHA AND IMAM, JJ.
Banarsidas and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others. Respondents.
Petn, No. 569 of 1954.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Purshotam Trikamdas, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. N. Andley and Mr. Rameshwar Nath of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. Advocates with him), for Petitioners; MR. K. L. Misra, Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate, (Mr. K. B. Asthana and Mr. C. P. Lal Advocates with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
C.P.LAL, K.B.ASTHANA, K.L.MISHRA, PARSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.P.SINHA

Headnote:Article 136-Specialleave to appeal-Limitation-Delay in filing application-Effect-Limitation Act, 1908, section 5 Supreme Court Rules (1950) O.13 R.1.

       There was a delay of 44 days in filing the petition for special leave and the only ground urged in support of the application for condo nation of delay was that the petitioners had to collect money from amongst a large number of petitioners who were interested in the case.

       Held: This was not a sufficient ground for condoning the delay.

       An application for special leave to appeal is to be filed in the time limited by the Rules of Supreme Court.

Judgement

SINHA, J.: This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution on behalf of as many as 726 persons, ex-patwaris under the first respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, seeks that aid of this Court in enforcing the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, on the allegation mainly that they had been denied equality before the law and equal opportunity for employment under the State. The Revenue Minister of Uttar Pradesh is the second respondent, and the Land Reforms Commissioner of that State is the third respondent. The Collectors of Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Aligarh, Badaun and Moradabad are respondents 4 to 8.

2. It appears that patwaris numbering about 28,000 in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh had organized themselves in 1940 into "The U. P. Patwaris Association" with a view to improving their prospects and emoluments. They were part-time servants of the Government in the Revenue Department. After the Zamindari Abolition Act was brought into operation in that State, their services were very much in demand.

The association held meetings and passed resolutions demanding increase in pay and allowances and betterment of their service conditions. These matters were under the consideration of the Government, following upon representations and deputation to the Revenue Minister. It appears, however, that under bad advice a large number of patwaris in the State went on a "pen-down strike" on 9-1-1953 with the result that the Government withdrew the official recognition of the Association on 19-2-1953.

In the meantime the new Land Records Manual was published in January 1953 embodying new amended rules regarding recruitment, conditions of service and duties of patwaris. This brought matters to a head and there was a special session of the Association at Lucknow on 26-1-1953. The Association passed resolutions protesting against the revised Land Records Manual.

It was also resolved at the special session that all patwaris should submit their resignations on 2-2-1953, requesting that they may be relieved of their work by 4-3-1953 after which date they will treat themselves as free from all obligations to work under the Government . In pursuance of that resolution, about 26,000 patwaris in the whole of the State resigned. There is no doubt that by submitting their resignations en masse the patwaris betrayed a lack of sense of discipline.

By doing so, they apparently intended to paralyze the whole revenue administration in the State and to coerce the Government to accept their demands; but they did not envisage the situation that the Government might accept their resignations and take them at their own words. The Government decided to accept their resignations and the petitioners were relieved of their duties soon after the submission to their resignations, before 4-3-1953.

On the very next day, the 5th March, Government announced the creation of a new service of "Lekhpals" and proceeded to organize that service by recruiting the new personnel which included most of the old patwaris. The new cadre also included all those patwaris whose record of service was free from blemishes and who had withdrawn their resignations.

Out of the petitioners also as many as 132 have been absorbed in the new cadre of Lekhpals and many more are likely to be absorbed in the service of Government . Thus it appears that Government have been giving a locus paenitentiae to those of the ex-patwaris who have realized their mistake in joining the agitation aforesaid and thus trying to force the hands of government.

3. The petitioners grievance is that they have been prevented from re-entering the Government service upon the reorganisation of the cadre under the new name. But it is clear that the Government are within their rights to lay down certain qualifications for the new recruits. They are entitled to exclude those persons who have betrayed a lack of proper sense of discipline.

It cannot, therefore, be said that the Government have denied an equa













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top