Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2018SPLA/760/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special appeal against the rejection of a request for regularization of employment, the High Court allowed the appeal. Setting aside the Single Judge's order, the Court directed the respondents to consider the appellants' case based on the earlier Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No.110 of 2013 which mandated consideration of similar claims under existing schemes.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal allowed; order of Single Judge set aside; respondents directed to consider appellants' case based on Special Appeal No.110 of 2013.

Sanjeev Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 760 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, by means of which, the claim of the appellants for regularization has been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

¶7

A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.110 of 2013 while considering the issue in question came to the conclusion that various writ petitions have been decided by various learned Single Judges and they have already followed the judgment rendered in (i) Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Saxena and others, 1995 (2) ALJ 1346 and (ii) Government of Tamil Nadu and others vs. G. Mohamed Ameenudeen, J.T. 1999 (9) SC 173 . The aforesaid special appeal was decided on 26.2.2013. While deciding the issue in question, the Division Bench observed as under:

¶8

"Thus on a careful consideration of rival submissions, we are of the view that learned Single Judge directed the appellants to offer employment in terms of his earlier judgment in Asha Ram's case. However, since the scheme has been framed towards the compliance of Supreme Court's judgment in G. Mohd. Ameenudeen's case, though, thereafter a subsequent Government Order dated 3.10.2007 as aforesaid, was issued, it would have been appropriate for learned Single Judge to issue direction for consideration of the case of respondents- writ petitioners instead of issuing direction to offer employment.

¶9

To clarify the position further, though, a Government Order was issued subsequent to the notification of scheme whereby the earlier Government Order accompanying the scheme was modified to some extent but that subsequent Government Order was again made subject to the outcome of pending writ petitions in this Court. Even though, in some of the judgments, the scheme was not taken notice yet in the majority of judgments rendered by learned Single Judges, the directions as contained in the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the cases of (i) Union of India vs Dinesh Kumar Saxena and others, reported in 1995 (2) ALJ 1346 and (ii) Government of Tamil Nadu and others vs G. Mohamed

¶10

Ameenudeen, reported in J.T. 1999(9) SC 173 have been followed.

¶11

In that view of the matter when the majority of learned Single Judges have passed the judgments/orders in line with the Supreme Court's judgments, as above, the retrenched census employees can be absorbed only under the scheme framed by the State Government. Hence, the impugned judgment is modified to read that the State Government shall consider the cases of private respondents (writ petitioners) herein on merit and in the light of the scheme as well as Government orders issued towards the compliance of the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as the judgments passed by learned Single Judges in line therewith.

¶12

This Special Appeal, thus, stands allowed to that extent."

¶13

Since the Division Bench has allowed the claim of the similarly situated persons finding that their claims were based on the basis of the Judgment rendered by various learned Single Judges relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the present special appeal also deserves to be set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed and the order dated 13th July, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellants in the light of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2013 passed in Special Appeal No.110 of 2013.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Bhaskar

¶16

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Sanjeev Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Rai Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Rahul Mishra and 13 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 11 Ors.

Anirudha Singh Vs Dharmeshwar Upadhyay

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs Prayag Narain Dubey(P. N. Dubey)

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Bare Singh Vs State of U.P.