Allowed

Arif Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2018WRIA/25492/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the petitioner was entitled to file this writ petition as the termination order constituted a fresh cause of action, and since the earlier writ petition regarding the termination of his father was pending, the petitioner’s temporary appointment and legal standing were sustained.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the order of termination dated 29.10.2018 is set aside. Consequences to follow.

Arif Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25492 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Arif Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sujeet Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶6

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Khare assisted by Mr. Anurag Ojha and Mr. Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

The learned Senior Advocate has pointed out the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by this Court and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 and 4 by Mr. Sujeet Kumar. It is apparent that the only objection that has been taken in the counter affidavit is with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been submitted that Writ Petition No.18674 of 1995 (Shamim Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Others) after being restored is pending before this Court relating to the termination of the father of the petitioner by the order of the Administrator dated 24.06.1995, in which the petitioner has been substituted after his father's death and instead of filing this writ petition he should have filed an application for further interim relief in Writ Petition No.18674 of 1995.

¶8

This Court finds that the earlier writ petition was filed by the father of the petitioner against his termination order dated 24.06.1995 and after interim order was passed therein late Shamim Ahmad continued to function till he expired on 20.09.2016. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds, thereafter, during the pendency of the earlier writ petition. Later on for some reason, the writ petition was dismissed in default and in pursuance of such dismissal, the petitioner’s appointment was terminated. On restoration of the writ petition and recall there was no reason for the respondents to have passed the order of termination of the petitioner. The order of termination of the petitioner being a fresh cause of action, the petitioner is entitled to file this writ petition.

¶9

With respect to the other contents of the writ petition in the para wise reply that has been given by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, no comments have been offered on the specific grounds taken in the writ petition except that the petitioner was given compassionate appointments only conditionally subject to the

¶10

decision of writ petition No.18674 of 1995.

¶11

The Writ Petition No.18674 of 1995 is still pending disposal of this Court. The petitioner is entitled to continue. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed the order of termination dated 29.10.2018 is set aside. Consequences to follow.

¶12

Order Date :- 20.12.2018 cks/-

Arif Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Pawan Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

suraj narain gupta Vs rati chaturvedi

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Pooja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others