Ram Ratan vs Janpad Panchayat and Others

S.P. Srivastava, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing his writ petition as not maintainable, the petitioner-appellant has now come up in letters patent appeal, seeking redress praying for the reversal thereof.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent-petitioner, and have carefully perused the record.

The writ petition giving rise to this appeal had been filed seeking the quashing of the order, dated September 14, 1995, whereunder for want of sanction for the post of Chowkidar in the establishment of Janpad Panchayat, Dabra, the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with. The petitioner had further prayed for a direction requiring the respondent in the writ petition to regularise his services and to pay him the salary, etc., including arrears thereof treating him to be a peon appointed on regular basis.

The petitioner claimed that he had been appointed on compassionate ground on the post of peon vide the order, dated March 5, 1979, against a clear vacant post as his father had died-in-harness. A copy of this order of appointment has been filed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, which shows that it was a time bound temporary appointment for a period of three months only. However, the Collector did not approve of this order, as is clear from Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. On the strength of certain interim orders in various proceedings the petitioner succeeded in getting the salary, etc., admissible to a peon and ultimately he filed a suit being a Civil Suit No. 61A of 1983, challenging the order dated May 18, 1983, whereunder he stood removed from service. He sought a declaration that the order, dated May 18, 1983, was illegal and also sought for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction requiring the defendants not to implement the said order and continue to keep the plaintiff on the regular post of peon.

In the aforesaid suit the plaintiff got an interim injunction in his favour by the trial Court but it was later on vacated in appeal vide the order, dated September 3, 1986. The suit is however, still pending.

The writ petition was contested by the respondents asserting that the petitioner had not been appointed on compassionate ground as claimed but he had been appointed purely on temporary basis on the application of his father Kunjilal himself who was working as a peon in the establishment of Janpad Panchayat but this appointment was not approved of by the Collector, who was the competent authority. It was asserted that there was no post available against which the petitioner could be accommodated. In the absence of the sanction for the post and finances the petitioner could not be retained in service.

The learned single Judge vide the impugned order has dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable in view of the pendency of the civil suit being of the view that for the same cause of action on the basis of which the writ petition has been filed a remedy was already being pursued by the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove, what we find is that the plaintiff had no right to hold the post and had no security of tenure. No such right to hold the post could be deemed to have been secured in his favour on the basis of the alleged order of appointment sought to be relied upon which had not been approved of the competent authority specially in the absence of the sanction for the post and the requisite budgetory sanction for the payment of salary, etc.

The petitioner had come up with a false allegation and had suppressed material facts while approaching this Court seeking an interference in the exercise of its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He claimed to have been appointed on a compassionate ground on account of his father dying-in-harness. This assertion was, however, demonstrated to be false to his knowledge.

Considering the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove the present one was not at all a fit case for the intervention of equity.

In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.