LAWS(ALL)-1998-9-57

SANDEEP AGARWAL Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

Decided On September 15, 1998
SANDEEP AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
UNIT TRUST OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. L. Saraf, J. Two writ petitions (i) Writ Petition No. 19087 of 1990 and (ii) Writ Petition No. 291 of 1991, were filed by the petitioners against the respondents seeking relief for continuance of their ser vice. The first writ application was filed on 30-7-1990 seeking the following reliefs: (i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction to commanding respondents and restraining the respondents in making new appointment at every 6 month to the post of Assistant knowing typing in the Branch office at Kanpur considering previous (petitioners) employees which amount to unfair labour practice under the law. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dents not to discontinue or deny duty to the petitioners w. e. f. 1-8-90 till the regular appoint ment and the petitioner be considered for regular appointment to the post of "assistant knowing typing" if vacancy and post continues. " (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dents to pay the wages and other allowances and benefits admissible to other Regular Employees of the Assistant post. " The Court by an order dated llth September, 1990 was pleased to pass the following order: "issue notice. In the meantime, it is directed that the respondents shall not discontinue or deny the duties to the petitioners with effect from 1-7-1990 for the post of Assistant knowing Typing till as regular appointment is made for the said post or till services of the petitioners are dispensed with in accordance with law. " The said order passed by the Court virtually granted the relief of prayer (ii) of the petition.

(2.) THERE was no interim order passed on the second writ application by this Hon'ble High Court.

(3.) AS per the said letter of appoint ment the petitioners were appointed only for stipulated period and unless extended the services of the petitioners were to be terminated on the expiry of the stipulated period. They were not eligible to any fac ility admissible to regular staff of the Trust.