Allowed

Dev Narain Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2018WRIA/38338/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner daily wage drivers sought regularization of services. The court held that no useful purpose would be served by delay and remitted the matter to the University Registrar to decide the regularization claim within three months via mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to Registrar to decide regularization claim within three months; petition disposed of.

Dev Narain Singh and Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38338 of 2009

¶3

Petitioner :- Dev Narain Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Mridul Tripathi,Praval Tripathi,S.M.G.Asghar,V.M.Zaidi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Mohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 3 had expired. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are working as Drivers on a daily wage basis in the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the "University"). The petitioners claim that they are entitled to regularization of their services on the footing of various Government Orders. The petitioners have already made a representation in this regard to respondent University. The respondent University has not decided the claim of the petitioners for regularization till date.

¶7

Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Mohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, submits that the claim of the petitioners needs to be verified by the competent authority.

¶8

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶9

No useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending. In case, the petitioners' services are liable to be regularized on the footing of Government Orders, there is no reason why their cases should not be considered for regularization.

¶10

The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 3, Registrar, Chhatripati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur for consideration of the claim for regularization in accordance with law.

¶11

A mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 3,Registrar, Chhatripati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur commanding

¶12

him to decide the representation of the petitioners and claim for regularization of services of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.10.2018

¶15

Dhananjai

Dev Narain Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Narain Singh and Others 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhansi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saukat and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Natthi Lal Vs Union of India through Its Principal Secretary, Finance, New Delhi and 2 Others

C/M Vijay Nath Ram Shekhar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Others