ASHWANI KUMAR MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 I am disposing of this petition finally

(3.) THE petitioner has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days, and hence he has claimed that bis1, service should be continued. He has placed before me the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sri Ram Kishan v. Union of India (writ petition No. 853 of [990 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) (IV) SV LR (Labour) 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.