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

1996 Supreme(All) 308

G.P.MATHUR, KUNDAN SINGH
LIHAZUR REHMAN KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ravi Kant, SUDHIR CHANDRA,

G. P. MATSRAR, J.

Parties have exchanged affidavits and therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Munsiff by the State Government dated August 9, 1995. The appointment order (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) is a long one and towards the end some conditions were mentioned. One of these was that he had been appointed as a Munsiff in a temporary capacity on the condition that till he was appointed as a Munsiff in substantive capacity, he would he governed by Notification No. 20/l-74-appointment-3 dated June 11, 1974 which are applicable to temporary employees. The Full Court passed a resolution on July 23, 1994 that haying regard to the work and conduct of the petitioner his service be dispensed with in accordance with the relevant service rules and a recommendation to that effect be made to the Governor. There after, the Governor of U. P. exercising powers under U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, passed on March 7, 1995 terminating the service of the petitioner w. e. f. the date of receipt of notice. The order further mentions that the petitioner would be ent






































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top