Uttarakhand High Court Allows Mandamus Directing to Consider Petitioner’s Employment

Must Read

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and...

Follow us

A Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Lok Pal Singh heard the case of Ankit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

The Petitioner in this case was seeking for the following reliefs:

  • Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and to quash the order/letter passed by the respondent by which the respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. 
  • Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner in terms of the agreement executed between their grandfather and the sugar factory.

Facts of the Case

Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mill Ltd., District Nainital was established in the year 1974. At the time of establishment, some farmers provided their land for the Mill, in lieu whereof, they were given a share in the respondent Mill as per the area of their land. Besides this, the landowners/shareholders and the respondent Mill entered into an agreement whereby it was provided that on the basis of land provided, employment will be given to the farmer himself, his son/grandson as per their qualification in the factory. 

The grievance of the petitioner was that he is the heir /member of one of such families whose land was acquired for the purpose of establishment of a factory but he was denied employment by the respondent, despite taking the land. In this regard, several representations were made before the authorities but no heed was paid thereon. Lastly, the petitioner’s father moved a representation before the respondent requesting to provide employment to the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the name of the petitioner’s father was not present in the list of those landowners who transferred their land in favour of the respondent Sugar Mill. 

Subsequently, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent stating that as per the condition of the agreement between the original land donor, Shri Balka Singh, employment was provided to his son Rishipal (uncle of petitioner) who had also retired from service, and after his retirement, neither his legal heir nor any other grandson of Late Balka was entitled to get the service in Sugar Mill.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the agreement executed between the shareholder and the respondent Mill, the family of the shareholder is entitled to get employment upto three generations and as such the respondent Mill had wrongly denied employment to the petitioner. 

He further submitted that even if the first employment was provided to the son of the land donor viz. uncle of the petitioner, the petitioner was also entitled to employment in the sugar mill.

Contentions of the Respondent

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the language and understanding of the agreement, either the son or grandson was entitled to get employment in the respondent Mill. 

He further submitted that there was a stroke “/” between Purta (son) and potra (grandson) which means that either the son or the grandson would be provided the employment. He also submitted that the son of the original land donor i.e. uncle of the petitioner had already been provided employment, therefore, the petitioner who is the grandson was not entitled to provide the employment. 

In order to support his submissions, learned counsel for respondent referred to:

  • Rasal Singh v. Election Commission of India and others, 2014 
  • Awdesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2011
  • Balsara Home Products v. Director General cited in 2006 (1 to 6) DLT 391

Court’s Analysis

The Court opined that the respondent Sugar Mill should have considered the fact that the landowner who donated the land for the establishment of the sugar mill, their future generation should not be left starving. The interpretation of the agreement by the respondent to the effect that either the son or grandson will be provided employment is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It was accordingly held that denial of employment to the petitioner by the respondent mill was arbitrary and illegal. 

Court’s Decision

In this case, the writ petition was allowed. A mandamus was issued to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for employment, as per his eligibility, within a period of three months from the date of judgement.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -