Petitioner secured a writ petition allowing his regularization claim after Standing Counsel conceded rebuttable evidence of continued service post-2005 required reconsideration.
Impugned order dated 26 April 2017 quashed; matter remitted to Fourth Respondent for reconsideration.
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. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31724 of 2017
Petitioner :- Birendra Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Learned Standing Counsel fairly concedes that in light of the disclosures made in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, the impugned order cannot be sustained since the petitioner has continued to work right up to 2005 and even thereafter. In view thereof, he prays for the matter being remanded to the respondent No. 4 for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with law and the relevant statutory rules.
Accordingly and in light of the statement so made, this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 26 April 2017 is hereby quashed. In consequence, the matter is remitted to the fourth respondent for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 LA/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for regularization can be sustained given continued service post 2005.
Whether the impugned order denying the claim can be quashed and matter remanded.
Birendra Rawat
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
