Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sunita Pandey vs U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others on 3 June, 2011
Bench: Arun Tandon, Jayashree Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33618 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Sunita Pandey
Respondent :- U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh
Respondent Counsel :- L.D. Rajbhar
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
Petitioner before this Court is admittedly the wife of an employee of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. She is aggrieved by the circular issued by the U.P.S.R.T.C Heard Quarters, Lucknow dated 13th May 2011 specifically the conditions -1 and 2 of the said letter which reads as follows.
" 1- ,sls deZpkfj;ksa ftuds lacfU/k;ksa ds uke ls vuqcfU/kr clsa @ fMiks {ks= esa lapkfyr gS vkSj mudh rSukrh mlh {ks= @ fMiksa esa gSaA ,slh clksa dk lapkyu rRdky izHkko ls jksd fn;k tk;s vkSj lapkyu ds iwoZ eq[;ky; ls vuqefr izkIr fd;k tk;sA
2- ;fn ,sls izdj.kksa esa fuxe eq[;ky; ls vuqefr nh tkrh gS rks lcaf/kr dkfeZd ml {[email protected] esa tgka mlds lacf/k;ksa ds cl lapkfyr gSa] rSukr ugha j[kk tk;sxkA mldh rSukrh vU; {ks= esa dh tk;sxh vFkok lacf/kr dkfeZd ds lacfU/k;ksa ds uke dh cl dk lapkyu vU; {ks= esa djk;k tk;sxkA"
According to the petitioner conditions so incorporated in the general circular and virtually revived the contract, which has been entered into between the corporation and the petitioner in the year 2008, term of said contract has yet not expired. He submits that the novation of the contract can not be done unilaterally. For the purpose, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1343 Delhi Development Authority vs. General Action Committee of SFS flats. He also refers to interim order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30.05.2011 passed in writ petition no. 32508 of 2011 wherein in respect of petitioner of the said petition an interim order has been granted.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of the writ petition, we find that there has been no novation of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the corporation under the circular dated 13.05.2011. The contention in that regard is based on misreading of the conditions referred to above. The circular has provided for permission being obtained in respect of the running of the contracts which has been obtained by the family members of the employees of the corporation working in the same region for which the contract has been obtained. The circular itself provides that either the employee is to be shifted or the route of the contracted vehicles has to be changed.
We are of the considered opinion that the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is a clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case.
The Apex Court in the Case of Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2003(2) SCC 11, has held as follows:
" It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision."
The said judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal Vs. Chaudhari Dev Lal University, Sirsa & Anr., reported in AIR 2008 SCW 5817.
In view of the aforesaid we have no hesitation to hold that the contract which has been entered between the petitioner and the corporation has not been brought to an end under the impugned circular. The conditions imposed are qua permission being obtained from the headquarters, and either the place of work of the employee or the route of the contracted vehicle being changed.
Interim order passed by the Division Bench does not lay down any binding precedent more so when we are deciding the writ petition finally.
We do not find any good ground to interfere with the circular dated 13th May 2011.
However, it is provided that the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh shall make appropriate application in terms of the circular dated 13th May 2011 for permission being considered qua the running of the petitioner's vehicle to the Headquarters of the Corporation and the Managing Director of the Corporation is requested to take appropriate decision thereon within two weeks from the date the application is so received.
The writ petition is disposed of subject to the observation made above.
Order Date :- 3.6.2011
Abhishek Sri.
