Petitioner, a cook disengaged on oral grounds, challenged the action as arbitrary under Article 14. Court disposed of petition directing respondent to decide the pending representation within six weeks.
Directing respondent no. 5 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 26.9.2019 in accordance with law within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18254 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shyama Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saif Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Saif Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged on honorarium basis as cook and she has been orally disengaged on 30.8.2019 on the ground that due to lower strength of students, one of the cook out of three cooks has to be disengaged, and accordingly, the petitioner has been disengaged. Her grievance is that she is the oldest cook in the institution and the other two cooks are above 60 years of age while the petitioner is aged about 49 years, and therefore, her disengagement cannot be said to be proper even though she has no specific right to the employment on the post of cook, but still the disengagement of the petitioner is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has already moved a representation dated 26.9.2019 before the respondent no. 5 which is pending disposal.
Learned counsel for the respondents jointly state that the representation of the petitioner dated 26.9.2019 shall be decided by the respondent no. 5 in accordance with law, within a time bound period.
In view of the aforesaid, no useful purpose will be served to keep this writ petition pending and call for a counter affidavit. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 5 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 26.9.2019, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of representation dated 26.9.2019, without being influenced by any of the observation made in the body of this order.
Order Date :- 25.11.2019 Arif
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's disengagement on oral grounds is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the High Court should direct the respondent to decide the pending representation expeditiously.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyama Devi
State Of U.P.
5 Others
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
