Partly allowed

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020SPLA/1611/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a special appeal challenging a service transfer order, maintaining the status quo for two months and directing the administration to decide on an appellant's representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order disposed of without expressing opinion on merits; Status quo maintained for two months; Liberty to file representation within four weeks for disposal within six weeks.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1611 of 2008

¶3

Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Appellant :- Moti Lal,Smt. Meera Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Prashant Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This special appeal is directed against the order dated 30.9.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35769 of 2008 (Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others).

¶7

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the appellant claims that he was appointed on the post of Messenger on 6.1.1986. By an order dated 20.5.2008 six persons including the appellant were transferred to the post of Prahari. The abovementioned writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order.

¶8

The contention of the appellant before the Writ Court was that in the garb of the transfer order, the respondents had reverted the appellant which was per se illegal and wholly inconsistent in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge after recording that the appellant had been unable to draw any distinction between the status of Class IV employee working as a Messenger or as a Prahari disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :-

¶9

" The question as to whether the work of a messenger has to been taken from the petitioner or that of Prahari is within the administrative control of the respondent no.2 who has issued the order dated 28.5.2008. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order, it is open to him to approach the said authority who shall consider the request of the petitioner and pas appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶10

The writ petition is disposed of."

¶11

When this matter was taken up for hearing by us on being quized, learned counsel for the appellant informed us that his client has not filed any representation before respondent no.2 in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge for the

¶12

simple reason that an interim order was passed in his favour in this special appeal on 25.11.2008 under which he is still working on the post of Messenger.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by learned Single Judge as the question whether the work of a messenger has to be taken from the appellant or that of Prahari is within the administrative control of respondent no.2 who has issued the order dated 28.5.2008.

¶14

In view of above, we dispose of this writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with liberty to the appellant to file a representation before respondent no.2 raising all the grounds therein, which have been taken by him in this appeal alongwith the certified copy of this order.

¶15

In case any such representation is filed by the appellant before respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation by the appellant before him.

¶16

For a period of two months from today or till the appellant's representation filed by him before respondent no2 is decided, whichever is earlier, status quo with regard to the service of the appellant as on date shall be maintained.

¶17

In case the petitioner fails to file any representation before respondent no.2 within the period indicated hereinabove, this special appeal shall stand automatically dismissed and the appellant shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.1.2020 Shalini

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar 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

Smt. Poonam Vs Rajiv Bariyani

Pradeep Kumar Vs Arati

Geeta Devi Vs Sushil Kumar Yadav

Pradeep Kumar Niranjan Vs Rajeshwari

Prabhat Singh Vs Smt. Shweta Yadav

Neha Singh Vs Chandan Pratap Singh