Land was taken with assurance to provide permanent job in municipality but now showing inhospitality.

Land was taken with assurance to provide permanent job in municipality but now showing inhospitality.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Attachments1:15 AM (0 minutes ago)

to pmosbsupremecourturgent-actionhgovupcsupcmupuphrclko
Whether my human rights were not violated by the public functionaries of government of Uttar Pradesh.
Hon’ble Sir whether the order of court was to provide justice to justice seeker or overlook it on flimsy ground. According to D.M. Mirzapur ,writ petitioner can’t be appointed directly as for operating tube well has been appointed on contract. Again he quoted as since appointments are kept under suspension through Government order number -20/1/19-का2/97 dated 3/11/97 and Government order number -6/1011/backlog/2003T.C.(2) dated-24/1/2003 so permanent appointment is not feasible.
31 December 2015
22:58
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Writ Petition No.43549 of 2001.
Gur Beer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Hon’ble  V. C. Mishra ,Judge.
This writ petition has been  filed by the petitioner with the prayer that therespondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of pump attendant and pay him salary paid to the pump attendant.
The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that opposite partyNagar Palika Parishad , Mirzapur has acquired the bhoomidhari land of the petitioner for thepurpose of installation  of tube well in the month of January, 2001 offered by the father of the ‘ petitioner on the condition that one of his son-the petitioner would be provided a job in Nagar Palika Parishad pump attendant. On the application,the petitioner moved subsequently, respondent -1 issued a letter dated 1/4/2001 permitting the petitioner to work as  pump attendant and he may be permanently appointed after the approval of the Government . The petitioner started to work as pump attendant from 21.2.2001. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been, given any permanent appointment and opposite patties are not giving the salary even on the basis of daily wager nor are permitting the petitioner to put his signature on the attendance register.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Letter dated 1.4.2001 was issued subsequently after the land admeasuring 10 X 10 feet was given by the petitioner’s father and the said condition was imposed only on providing further additional land admeasuring 24 X 10 feet. This additional Land has not been provided at all for this purpose, therefore, there is no question for complying with any of the said Condition .
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his application is already  pending before the respondent Nagar Mahapalika Parishad for providing appointment as tube well operator which has not been disposed off till date.
 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and looked into the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent -District Magistrate Mirzapur to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application dated 10/09/2001 (annexure number 10 with the writ petition ) expeditiously .preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order .No order as to costs. This order was delivered by aforesaid Hon’ble Judge on 5/12/2005 .
Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of attachment with this representation.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the judgment delivered by High court of judicature at Allahabad ,it is evident that Tube well of Municipality Mirzapur is installed at the land of writ petitioner but still he is deprived from the permanent appointment. Whether this is not reflection of arbitrariness and tyranny of public functionaries. Father of writ petitioner was assured appointment of one of his son against permanent vacancy in the department but now they have forgot their promise. Whether it is justified.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that if suppose that public functionaries will not appoint aggrieved as permanent staff even then municipality Mirzapur may pay the minimum wages to aggrieved as decided by Government of Uttar Pradesh which will be Rs.6580.00 instead of Rs.5100.00. Whether this not sheer injustice with your applicant who has provided his piece of land to municipality and latter municipality showed inhospitality to your applicant. 
           This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                                Yours  sincerely
                            Gurbeer Singh S/O Guru Charan Singh ,Roadways bus stand ,Vindhyachal , District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India

2 comments on Land was taken with assurance to provide permanent job in municipality but now showing inhospitality.

  1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and looked into the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent -District Magistrate Mirzapur to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application dated 10/09/2001 (annexure number 10 with the writ petition ) expeditiously .preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order .No order as to costs.

  2. The Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978, robbed the „right to
    property‟ of its fundamental right-character, and adorned it with status of
    Constitutional/legal right. Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31 were deleted from the Part III-
    “Fundamental Rights” and only a fraction in the form of Art. 300 A which
    corresponds to Art. 31(1) only, has been inserted in Part XII under a separate
    Chapter V “Right to Property”. What is important to note is that Art. 19(1) (f)
    which had guaranteed freedom to all citizens to acquire, hold and dispose of
    property and remaining clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 31, which hedged the right of
    the Legislature, to acquired property with limitations for public purposes and
    only on payment of adequate compensation, not illusionary one, as interpreted
    by the Apex Court, have been omitted altogether by the Legislature. The effect
    of this amendment of vast magnitude is that the „right to property‟ is no more a
    fundamental right but is only a constitutional/legal right and in the event of
    breach thereof, the remedy available to an aggrieved person is to approach the
    High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitutional India and not the Supreme
    Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution, a speedy remedy available earlier.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: