Remanded

Shamshul HUDA v. State of U.P. and 18 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2021WRIA/1944/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged seniority order dated 31.08.2020 which addressed only two of fourteen grievances. Court held criteria for comparing dates of joining and appointment were arbitrary and perverse, setting aside order and remanding matter to Secretary for afresh determination within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.08.2020 set aside; matter remanded to Secretary, Government of U.P., to pass fresh orders within six weeks.

Shamshul HUDA Vs State of U.P. and 18 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1944 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Shamshul Huda Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 18 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Baranwal,Dibya Baranwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner being senior was not given the due seniority while preparing the seniority list on 01.08.2014. He specifically highlights the cases of persons mentioned at seniority nos.1, 15, 63, 67, 90, 91, 105, 108, 111, 113, 114, 126, 127 and 148 in the said seniority list to be junior to the petitioner, however, while determining the seniority the claim of the petitioner was not rightly considered.

¶6

The petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.1911 of 2020 which was disposed off by this Court on 04.02.2020 issuing directions for deciding the grievances of the petitioner. As no orders were passed in pursuance to the directions given by this Court in its order dated 04.02.2020, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No.1964 of 2020. As while no order was passed, another Contempt Petition No.3512 of

¶7

2020 was filed which is said to be pending before this Court. The order dated 17.06.2020 was passed giving a fresh liberty to the respondents to pass orders in compliance of the directions dated 04.02.2020. In compliance of the order dated 17.06.2020, an order dated 31.08.2020 was passed, which is impugned in the present writ petition, considering the representation of the petitioner, however, while doing so the Secretary, who passed the order, considered the case of only two persons one being Dr. Basant Kumar Mehrotra and another being Dr. Ram Pyare. In the said order, it is recorded that Dr. Basant Kumar Mehrotra has passed away, however, while determining the claim of the petitioner vis a vis Dr. Ram Pyare, prima facie , wrongly records that the said Dr. Ram Pyare took charge on 22.09.1992, whereas, in the seniority list prepared on 01.08.2014 it was indicated that Dr. Ram Pyare after appointment from the Commission started working with effect from 13.12.1995. Thus, it is argued that while determined the grievances, the date of appointment of the petitioner from the Commission i.e. 19.05.1994, was taken to be the date of joining, whereas, in

¶8

the case of Dr. Ram Pyare the date of joining is an ad hoc was considered which on the face of it an arbitrary decision. He further argues that in the representation which is on record as Annexure No.11, the instances of as many as fourteen persons were highlighted who have been wrongly shown to be senior to the petitioner, whereas, while passing the impugned order dated 31.08.2020, the case of only two persons was considered. He thus submits that the exercise carried out in the order dated 31.08.2020 is wholly arbitrary and perverse.

¶9

A counter affidavit has been filed sworn by Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Maharajganj, who has sworn on the basis of document from record and reiterates the contents of impugned order dated 31.08.2020.

¶10

In view of the submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the order dated 31.08.2020, it is clear that the grievances of the petitioner were not resolved in a proper manner, even the criteria adopted for determination of seniority of the petitioner to that of Dr. Ram Pyare is perverse and arbitrary. Accordingly, the order dated 31.08.2020 is set aside and the matter is

¶11

remanded before respondent no.2, Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow to pass fresh orders on the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure No.11 to the writ petition afresh and in accordance with the Seniority Determination Rules of 1991 within a period of six weeks from today.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the respondent nos.1 and 2 and ensure the compliance of the directions given by this Court within time granted.

¶13

The Registrar (Compliance) is also directed to communicate this order to the respondent nos.1 and 2 for its compliance within time granted.

¶14

The petition stands disposed off in terms of the said order.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Atul

Shamshul HUDA v. State of U.P. and 18 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshul HUDA v. State of U.P. and 18 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

Jamuna Prasad Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kiran Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tej Bali and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Awadhesh Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Rohit Bhatt Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others