Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal against a High Court judgment that had dismissed a writ petition challenging discontinuation of appointment on the post of Peon. The appellant had initially been appointed as a Registration Clerk on daily wage basis on September 18, 1986 in the office of District Registrar, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, and worked intermittently in that capacity until July 1, 1990. On June 30, 1988, he applied for the post of Peon, which had fallen vacant on the retirement of Inamul Haque, and on July 2, 1990, he was appointed as Peon on a pay scale of Rs. 750-940. The appellant submitted a representation on February 4, 1991 for regularisation of his service, which the District Registrar forwarded to the Inspector General of Registration on February 21, 1991 with a recommendation for extension of service. Despite this recommendation, his appointment was discontinued after February 28, 1991. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition along with other writ petitions by a common judgment dated February 8, 1995. The appellant's grievance before the Supreme Court was that his case had been wrongly connected with other matters relating to Registration Clerks on daily wage basis, whereas his case concerned continuation on the post of Peon, on which he had been appointed on ad hoc basis by order dated July 2, 1990. The Supreme Court found merit in this contention. It observed that since the writ petition related to continuance of appointment on the post of Peon and not on the post of Registration Clerk, and since the appellant was holding the post of Peon and not the post of Registration Clerk, the writ petition could not be linked with the writ petitions and special appeals of Registration Clerks employed on daily wage basis. Consequently, the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition could not be upheld. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 insofar as it related to dismissal of Writ Petition No. 8351 of 1991 filed by the appellant, restored the writ petition, and remanded it to the High Court for consideration on merits. No order was made as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Writ Petition - Clubbing of Cases - Not mentioned - The appellant was appointed as Peon after having worked as a daily-wage Registration Clerk; his writ petition challenged discontinuation of the Peon post, but the High Court dismissed it by a common judgment along with writ petitions of daily-wage Registration Clerks; the Supreme Court held that since the writ petition related to continuance of appointment on the post of Peon and not Registration Clerk, it could not be linked with the other cases; accordingly, the High Court's dismissal was set aside and the writ petition restored and remanded for consideration on merits - Held that a writ petition concerning a different post cannot be clubbed with writ petitions of another category of employees.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition by connecting it with other writ petitions and special appeals of daily-wage Registration Clerks when the appellant was appointed as Peon.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 insofar as it relates to dismissal of Writ Petition No. 8351 of 1991 filed by the appellant is set aside; the writ petition is restored and remanded to the High Court for consideration on merits; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ petitions concerning different posts cannot be clubbed together
- High Court must consider writ petition of a Peon separately from cases of daily-wage Registration Clerks
- erroneous linking vitiates dismissal
