Disposed

Satish Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Higher Education and Others

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2018WRIA/45558/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioners' representation for regularisation as daily wage clerks within four months by a reasoned order. It stayed the regular selection process until the regularisation issue is resolved. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the case for regularisation within four months by a reasoned order and stay on regular selection process.

Satish Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45558 of 2007 Petitioner :- Satish Kumar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Higher Education And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.S. Baghel,A.K.Singh,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Khanna,Ashok Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ambuj Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioners claim to be working as Routine Grade Clerks on daily wage basis in the respondent University. Petitioners claim that they are entitled for regularisation in the respondent University on the footing of various government orders and resolutions passed by the Executive Committee of the University.

¶6

It is stated that the name of the petitioners find mention in the list prepared by the Committee for considering the regularisation of daily wages employee. The position of the petitioners in the said seniority list entitle them to be regularised. It is contended that to defeat the claims of regularisation of the petitioners, proceedings for regular appointment were initiated by the respondent University.

¶7

In view of the aforesaid submissions, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. The petitioners shall make a representation to the respondent no. 2 for consideration of their case for regularisation. In case, the respondent no. 2 is not the competent authority he shall forward the said representation to the authority which is competent to take the decision in the matter. The competent authority shall decide the case of regularisation of the petitioners in accordance with law by a reasoned speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶8

Since there was an interim order in the instant writ petition, the regular selection process shall be undertaken only after the decision on the issue of regularisation of the petitioners.

¶9

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶10

Order Date :- 26.9.2018 Pravin

Satish Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Higher Education and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Higher Education 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

Ram Surat Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shailesh Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shamsheer Khyan Vs State of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. U.P. and Others

Krishna Gopal Vs State of U.P. and Others

C/M Muslim Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Ram Prakash Singh Chahar Vs State of U.P. Thru Sec. Dept of Basic Edu. and Others