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

2015 Supreme(All) 2541

DINESH MAHESHWARI, ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Dhirendra Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :- C.S.C
For the Respondent:- R.K.Srivastava

JUDGMENT

While ignoring the delay of 210 days in filing this appeal, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits.

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in the impugned order dated 05.11.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5327 (S/S) of 1993 for the reasons and circumstances indicated infra.

3. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) came to be engaged against the post of Junior Engineer (Minor Irrigation) on a fixed salary of Rs. 1600/- per month by an order dated 30.11.1990, issued by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Lucknow. The order was purportedly issued for the reasons that such post of Junior Engineer (Minor Irrigation) remained vacant and thereby, boring work was being hampered. The engagement of the writ petitioner was, however, sought to be terminated by the order dated 06.07.1993 upon posting of regularly selected Junior Engineer. The writ petitioner challenged the said order dated 06.07.1993 in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 53




















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