Kripal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2010 by which the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. The petitioner was given appointment as Home Guard and now the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to notice and opportunity and as the notice and opportunity has not been given to the petitioner, therefore, the order is bad in law. Further submission has been made by the petitioner that in the similar circumstances, this Court while entertaining the Writ Petition No. 60527 of 2009 has entertained the same and an interim order has been granted.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has brought to the notice of the Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Akshay Amrutlal Thakkar, as well as judgment of this Court passed by Hon''ble Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40505 of 2007, Jitendra Kumar Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. showing therein that the petitioner being a Home Guard is not holder of civil post, therefore, the procedure as provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is not necessary to be followed.

I have considered the aforesaid judgments. The Apex Court while considering the claim, has held that the services of petitioner being honorary, there is no civil consequences, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief if there is an order of disengagement.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. It is however, open to the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondent before the competent court of law as advised.

No order is passed as to costs.