Tuesday, 28, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Raja Ram vs U.P.Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 784 ALL

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 784 ALL
Judgement Date : 17 May, 2017

Allahabad High Court
Raja Ram vs U.P.Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank ... on 17 May, 2017
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6476 of 2001
 

 
Petitioner :- Raja Ram
 
Respondent :- U.P.Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.Through Its M.D.And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr.L.P.Misra,P C Yadava,Sudhir Upadhyaya,Vinod Kumar Misra,Z.M.Siddiqui,Zainuddin Siddiqui
 
Counsel for Respondent :- R.K.Chaudhary,Ashutosh Singh,C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Cause shown is sufficient. Restoration application is allowed.

Writ petition is restored to its original number.

Order Date :- 17.5.2017

psd

(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)

.

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6476 of 2001

Petitioner :- Raja Ram

Respondent :- U.P.Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.Through Its M.D.And 3 Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr.L.P.Misra,P C Yadava,Sudhir Upadhyaya,Vinod Kumar Misra,Z.M.Siddiqui,Zainuddin Siddiqui

Counsel for Resp

Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

1. By the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.10.2001 passed by Senior Manager, U.P. Shakari Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Gonda Branch, Gonda whereby petitioner has been stopped from conducting the work of Deed Writing for the said Bank Branch and further direction that work of deed writing shall not be taken from petitioner any more. Petitioner has filed present writ petition claiming that he was appointed as Class IV employee on daily wage basis from time to time at different branches of the Cooperative Bank and was lastly given appointment as Deed Writer for the aforesaid branch. In support of his case, petitioner has filed as Annexure-4 his application for being appointed as a Deed Writer containing a note of Branch Manager stating "Sri Raja ram is appointed on post of Deed Writer". The application and note are dated 5.7.1985. Other than the aforesaid petitioner had not filed any fact regarding to the pay scale/salary or any other detail with regard to his working as an employee of the Bank.

2. Petitioner claims that he had worked more than 240 days in a year and is covered under the provisions of Section 6-Q of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has further claims that he has long service to his credit and hence, he could not have been removed in the alleged illegal manner.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents, in para-4 whereof  facts in detail have been narrated. The specific stand of the Bank is that in normal course of business large number of deeds, specially mortgage deeds,  are required to be drafted and prepared for the Bank for its loan transactions. To look after regular work, annual licences are given to Deed Writers to work for the Bank on a prescribed fixed remuneration to be paid by mortgager.

4. Petitioner was issued such a licence only and hence, he was never engaged in services of the Bank. One such licence dated 13.01.1999 is also Annexed as Annexure-CA-2 which was issued in favour of petitioner effective from 01.03.2000 to 28.02.2001. Hence, petitioner was working as a licencee and was never in the services of Bank. It is specifically stated in para-6 of the counter affidavit that petitioner's recruitment was not done under provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, nor his services is governed by any service rules of the Bank. He was never paid any salary instead he got remuneration against per deed written by him from mortgager.

5. In rejoinder affidavit the said averments have been vaguely denied. However, no evidence has been filed by petitioner in support of his case to prove that there ever existed any relationship of master and servant between him and the Bank.

6. Hence, in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner has failed to prove that there existed any relationship of master and servant or that he was ever employee of respondent Bank. It is proved that he was only a licencee on annual licence basis, and, his licence has been cancelled.

7. Thus, there is no force in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.5.2017

psd

(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter