CJ's Court
Special Appeal No. 94 of 2010
Smt. Vijay Singh
Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
Writ petitioner – appellant, aggrieved by order dated 05.01.2010
passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70801 of
2009, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952.
Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that an Urban
Community Development Scheme was launched by the State of U.P. with
the financial aid of the UNICEF. Writ petitioner – appellant (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘petitioner’) was initially appointed for a fixed period of
three months as a Community Organiser. All the Community Organisers
appointed under the said Scheme were permitted to work till 28.02.1983 by
the State Government vide order dated 16.04.1982. Despite that, it seems,
the petitioner was allowed to continue in employment. Petitioner earlier
filed Writ Petition 53810 of 2009 (Smt. Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.) raising a grievance in regard to stoppage of her salary. This Court, by
order dated 27.10.2009, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction
to the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner by a
speaking order within the time stipulated. In light of the aforesaid order, the
representation of the petitioner claiming payment of salary and
regularisation of her service was considered and by order dated 14.12.2009,
the claim for payment of salary was accepted and direction for payment
2
was issued, as noted in the order itself, but the claim for regularisation of
her service was rejected.
Petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the aforesaid order,
which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
We have heard Mr. Bhupendra Nath Singh, counsel for the petitioner,
for long length.
Mr. Singh advanced various submissions and cited a large number of
authorities.
As this appeal has to fail on a single point, we do not consider it
expedient either to incorporate or refer to those submissions and authorities
relied by Mr. Singh. It is trite that existence of a valid and sanctioned post
is sine qua non for regularisation of service of an employee. Nothing has
been brought on record, except various correspondences, to show that any
post of Community Organiser was sanctioned by the Competent Authority.
Once it is held so, the prayer made by the petitioner is not fit to be granted
and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed
accordingly.
28.01.2010
AHA
(C.K. Prasad, C.J.)
(Arun Tandon, J.)