HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
MALIK, C.J., CHATURVEDI, J.
Banarsi Das
Versus
State of U. P
Civil Misc. Writ No.45 of 1954
Decided On : 24-08-1954
2. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Standing Counsel that an application by 734 petitioners against 609 Lekhpals would give rise to confusion as the facts may not be same in every case and the considerations that might have weighed in each case might have been different.
3. It is, however, not necessary to go into the preliminary objection as Mr. Pathak has stated that he will not go into the individual cases of the 734 petitioners or the 609 Lekhpals but would confine himself to general questions which affect them all.
4. In the State of Uttar Pradesh there was a class of Government servants who were known as Patwaris. Their number was about twenty-eight thousand. They were appointed under the rules made under S.234, Land Revenue Act (3 of 1901). The relevant portion of S.234 reads as follows:
"234. The State Government may make rules consistent with this Act in respect of matters under clauses............
(a) ................................................
(b) regulating the appointment and transfer of Kanungos and patwaris, their salaries, qualifications, duties, removal, punishment, suspension, and dismissal."
Section 21 of the Act provides that the Collector with the previous sanction of the State Government may arrange the villages of the district in halkas and may, from time to time, alter the number limits of such halkas. Section 23 then lays down that "The State Government shall appoint a Patwari to each halka."
5. It is not necessary to deal here with the duties of the Patwaris. They are contained in the Land Revenue Act and the Land Records Manual. Their main function, however it may be mentioned, was to maintain village records and make periodical entries therein as to the person in possession of the holdings and in what capacity, the crops grown therein, the conditions of the crops and other similar information. The salary drawn by the Patwaris was Rs.25-1-40 and ten per cent. of the total cadre could be given the special grade of Rs.40-1-45 plus of course the usual dearness allowance.
6. The Patwaris were dissatisfied with the salary paid to them and their conditions of service and they formed a Provincial Patwaris Association which was recognised by the Government in the year 1940. From time to time they made demands for improvement of those conditions of service and the rate of pay fixed by the State Government. In the first week of June, 1952, they held a Provincial Conference at which they passed certain resolutions which are contained in Schedule A to the affidavit of Banarsi Das and sent them to the authorities concerned. The demands mostly were for improvement in their conditions of service and an increase in the emoluments of the Patwaris. A reply was received that the demands will be placed before the Government. On 24-12-1952, a reminder was sent for an early reply. On 8-1-1953, a letter was sent to the Land Reforms Commissioner pressing the demands already made. On 9-1-1953, there was a pen down strike. Thereafter on 11-1-1953, an emergent meeting was held of the Working Committee of the Association to consider the situation arising on account of the publication of the new Land Records Manual in Hindi which it was said had made their conditions of service still worse.
On the 25th and 26th of January, 1953, there was an emergent meeting of the Association at which it was decided that, as the Government had not acceded to their demands, the Patwaris had no other choice but to resign and between the 2nd and the 4th of February, 1953, resignations were sent by 26,134 Patwaris. A
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.