LAWS(ALL)-1975-12-1

BANKETSWAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On December 05, 1975
BANKETSWAR SHUKLA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer Incharge, Temkuhiraj Dispensary, district Deoria, by the Adyaksh, Zila Parishad, Deoria, by an order dated August 27, 1966. The petitioner was latter confirmed in that post by the Zila Parishad by an order dated November 12, 1969 with effect from October 24, 1969.' On October 11, 1974 the State Government issued an order where under the allopathic dispensary of Temkuhiraj. district Deoria, was provincialised and the hospital along with its equipments became the State Government hospital. In pursuance of that order the Zila Parishad, Deoria, transferred the hospital to the State Government through a registered transfer-deed dated November 4, 1974. Under the order dated October 11, 1974 all the employees of the hospital were given an option to become Government servants within three months. The petitioner being Incharge of the hospital also had the option to join the Government service within a period of three months. But after about 25 days, the petitioner was served with a notice asking him to hand over the charge of the Medical Officer to Dr. Parmod Kumar Rai, opposite party No. 5. The petitioner's grievance is that he was not allowed to exercise his option to enter the Government service and without any prior notice, he was dislodged from his post. The petitioner has alleged mala fides against the third and the fourth respondents. But it is not necessary to deal with this contention because the petition is entitled to succeed on another ground.

(2.) IN the transfer-deed dated November 4, 1974 there is clause 2 which reads: -

(3.) THE contention that the petitioner was not a party to the transfer-deed and as such was not entitled to invoke any of its clauses is misconceived. The agreement, indeed, was between the Zila Parishad and the State Government. But the petitioner along with other employees of the Zila Parishad was a beneficiary, under the deed of transfer. Clause 2 was clearly meant to protect and safeguard the interest of the existing staff of the Zila Parishad employed in the hospital.