Disposed

Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021WRIA/11137/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a block on his service ID and sought reinstatement. The High Court did not decide merits but directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks.

Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11137 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shalini Goel,Rama Goel Bansal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Shalini Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶7

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated 13/14.07.2021 (Annexure No. 17 to the writ petition).

¶8

ii.) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to rejoin the petitioner's service on the post of District Information System Manager under the Ayushman Bharat Yojna in the District Unit of the office of Chief Medical Officer, Mathura."

¶9

It is urged that petitioner pursuant to an advertisement issued by the second respondent, Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, came to be appointed on contract basis under the Ayushman Bharat Yojna Health Protection Mission as District Information System Manager. Petitioner performed his duties since 5 August 2019 to 23 March 2021, thereafter, petitioner suffered illness during the Covid period and could not attend his duties. On recovery, petitioner made an application for resuming the duties after being certified to be medically fit by the Government Hospital.

¶10

It is submitted that the impugned order dated 14 July 2021, the computerized ID of the petitioner has been blocked/deleted. In other words, the services of the petitioner has been discontinued. It is further submitted that no reason has been assigned, as to why, services of the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the second respondent shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner.

¶12

In view thereof, without entering into the merit of the case, the writ petition is being finally disposed of directing that the second respondent, Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18 August 2021 (S.A.-2) by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, expeditiously within eight weeks from the date of filing of copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition, copy of supplementary affidavit, as well as, copy of the representation.

¶13

It is made clear that impugned communication shall abide by the order proposed to be passed.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.9.2021 S.Prakash

Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Najmul Hasan Vs State of Up and Others

Bhookan Saran Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Swavittaposhit Mahavidyalay Shikshak Kalyan Samiti Vs The Chief Minister, Government of Uttar Pradesh

Subhash Chandra Tiwari Vs Commissioner of Consolidation and 5 Others

M/S Golden Impex and Another Vs M/S Magicon Impex Private Limited

Rajesh Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others