Dismissed

Nageshwar Prasad Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2017WRIA/40197/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking to quash an appointment order and direct regularization of services as a class IV employee. The court found the petitionaneous case not justified for interference. The petition was treated as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with vacant interim order. No specific orders for regularization or salary awarded.

Nageshwar Prasad Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2017)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40197 of 1999

¶3

Petitioner :- Nageshwar Prasad Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,S.K. Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

¶5

Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

¶6

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

¶7

“ a. issue a writ, order in the direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.7.99 (Annexure-14) passed by respondent no. 3 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 24.5.99.

¶8

b. issue a writ, order in the direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the regular appointment of the respondent No. 5 dated 14.5.99 (Annexure No. 15) passed by respondent no. 3.

¶9

c. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to regularise the services of the petitioner as class IVth Employee in the Department w.e.f. regularising the services of the respondent No. 5.

¶10

d. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to work continuously as he was working prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 23.7.99.

¶11

e. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the salary of the petitioner of minimum pay scale admissible to regular appointment Class IVth employee in the Minor Irrigation Department.”

¶12

I myself have gone through pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for .

¶13

Moreover, it appears that either cause of action no more survives or the petitioner has lost interest in the matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.

¶14

Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶15

Order Date :- 08.12.2017 Akn

Nageshwar Prasad Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nageshwar Prasad Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chandra Vs D.I.O.S. Gorakhpur and Another

Narendra Singh Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt.Bina Devi Vs Director of Secondary Education U.P.Alld. and Others

Shiv Shanker Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Pandey Vs D.I.O.S. and Others

Raghuvendra Kumar Singh Vs Joint Director of Education and Others