Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40725 of 2010 Petitioner :- Kripal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Madan Singh Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble 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 & another Vs. Akshay Amrutlal Thakkar
reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 943 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 Vs. State
of U.P and others 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.
Order Date :- 15.7.2010
Sazia