Disposed

Harvindar v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2020WRIA/8290/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought regularization of services. The High Court directed the District Horticulture Officer to decide the petitioner's representation for regularization within three months by a speaking order. The court clarified that the matter was not decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Horticulture Officer, Jaunpur to decide the petitioner's representation for regularization of services by a speaking order within three months.

Harvindar Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8290 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Harvindar Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Ojha,Rabindra Nath Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The petitioner was working as daily wager in the Horticulture Department. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to regularization of his services on the foot of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working On daily Wages or on Work Charge or Group C and Group D Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not being employed in the seasonal works.

¶7

The petitioner has made an representation in this regard but the same has not been decided till date.

¶8

The only prayer made by Shri Om Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner is that representation of the petitioner for regularization of his services may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶9

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contends the nature employment of the petitioner is a matter of fact. He further contends that the regularization of the petitioner can only be made in case there is a specific provision in the service rules and the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria. This is a matter of fact and law, which can be determined in the

¶10

first instance by the competent authority. However, it is not disputed the claim of the petitioner has to be decided by the competent authority within a reasonable period of time, and not kept pending indefinitely.

¶11

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶12

The matter is remitted to the respondent no.4-District Horticulture Officer, Jaunpur.

¶13

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.4-District Horticulture Officer, Jaunpur, to execute the following direction:

¶14

The respondent no.4-District Horticulture Officer, Jaunpur, shall decide the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his services, by a speaking order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad, alongwith a fresh copy of the representation and supporting documents if any.

¶15

The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the petitioner (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said

¶16

Aadhar Card is linked. The Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

It is clarified that this Court has not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits. It is for the competent authority, the respondent no.4-District Horticulture Officer, Jaunpur, to do so after independent application of mind in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.11.2020 Dhananjai

Harvindar v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvindar v. State of U P and 3 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

Durgesh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Babli Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt.Vibha Vajpayee and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Arvind Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vijay Shankar Pandey and 66 Others Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others