Allowed

State of U.P.Thru Secy and Ors. v. Ram Sajeevan and Anr.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2019WRIA/11688/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench allowed CM Review/Recall applications. The writ petition against the Public Service Tribunal's dismissal of a daily wager's claim for regularization and re-employment was restored and allowed. The Tribunal's judgment set aside due to legal errors regarding limitation and benefit of a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 26.04.2018 recalled; Writ Petition restored; Impugned Tribunal judgment set aside; Petition allowed.

State of U.P.Thru Secy and Ors. Vs Ram Sajeevan and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11688 of 2013

¶3

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. and Ors. Respondent :- Ram Sajeevan And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.Goyal, Prashant Mathur Counsel for Respondent :- Vikas Mani Srivastava (C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 3 of 2018)

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Delay in filing recall application is explained satisfactorily. It is hereby condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 22.1.2019 AK

¶7

Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11688 of 2013

¶8

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. and Ors. Respondent :- Ram Sajeevan And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.Goyal, Prashant Mathur Counsel for Respondent :- Vikas Mani Srivastava

¶9

(C.M. Review/Recall Application No. 4 of 2018)

¶10

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶11

This is an application for recall of the order dated 26.04.2018, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

¶12

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this application. The cause shown is sufficient. The order dated 26.04.2018 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number. The application is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 22.1.2019 AK

¶13

Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11688 of 2013

¶14

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. and Ors. Respondent :- Ram Sajeevan And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.Goyal, Prashant Mathur Counsel for Respondent :- Vikas Mani Srivastava

¶15

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶16

Writ petition is restored to its original number vide order of date passed on recall application. Heard Sri Prashant Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for applicantpetitioner. None appeared on behalf of Respondent-1 though the case is called in revised.

¶17

Writ petition is directed against judgment dated 19.11.2012 passed by U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 461 of 2004, whereby direction has been issued by Tribunal to re-employ Respondent-1, a daily wager and consider him for regularization under Rules.

¶18

Admittedly, Respondent-1 was terminated on 15.06.1992 as pleaded by him in claim petition before Tribunal. Claim petition was filed in 2004 which was apparently barred by limitation. Tribunal has referred to a judgment dated 11.03.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 1747 of 1992 which was filed by one Gulab Singh and not by Respondent-1, therefore, benefit of aforesaid judgement could not have been extended to Respondent-1, whose matter was already barred by limitation. In view thereof, impugned judgment of Tribunal cannot sustain.

¶19

In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 19.11.2012 is hereby set aside.

¶20

Order Date :- 22.1.2019 AK

State of U.P.Thru Secy and Ors. v. Ram Sajeevan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P.Thru Secy and Ors. v. Ram Sajeevan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Verma Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Garima Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Verma and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Aqil Rasheed Vs State of U.P.Thru Principal Secretary and Ors.

Abdullah Khan Vs Union of India Thru Ministry of Finance and Revenue and Ors.