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

Must Read

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

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

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -