CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashwani Kumar Misra vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 21 April 1992 · Citation: (1992) 2 AWC 1080

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Katju, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22628 of 1990
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 349 words

M. Katju, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on a salary of Rs. 2000/- per month in the services of Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi vide order dated 6-1-89 (annexure-2 to the writ petition). This order stated that this appointment is till further orders. Subsequently the Petitioner''s service has been terminated by the impugned order dated 28-8-1990 (annexure 6 to the writ petition;. Aggrieved the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.

I have heard the counsels for the parties and 1 am disposing of this petition finally.

3.

Petitioner''s appointment order dated 61 -1989 mentioned that the appointment is till further orders in my opinion such an appointment is only a temporary appointment The Petitioner was appointed for the Electric Crematorium but the post was not, sanctioned, and his services was terminated due to lack of sanction of post by the State Government.

4.

It is settled law that a temporary employee has no right to the post as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, and Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and others, .

5.

The Petitioner has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days, and hence he has claimed that his service should be continued. He has placed before me the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sri Ram Kishan v. Union of India (writ petition No. 853 of 1990 decided on 21-2-1991). In my opinion this judgment does not help the Petitioner. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Surendra Kumar (1991) (4) SLLR 163 which is a decision of 20-12-91 that the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court directing regularisation of certain employees without giving any reason are not precedents as they do not decide a question of law. Hence the Petitioner cannot rely on such decision where no reasoning is given and where no question law has been decided.

6.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No. order as to costs.