The petitioner withdrew the writ petition after being unable to explain gaps in service records shown by the District Collector in the impugned order.
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. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2467 of 2020
Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to explain from the impugned order dated 4.1.2020 passed by the District Collector, Sonbhadra, wherein it is mentioned that petitioner was never engaged continuously and he initially worked from August, 1991 to June, 1994 and then from November, 1994 to February, 1995 as daily wage driver in Tehsil, Duddhi. Thereafter, he worked from 5.8.1998 to 5.8.2002 and then from 1.7.2007 to 27.9.2007 as seasonal employee against post of Seasonal Collection Peon and it is also mentioned that thereafter from 28.9.2007, he is not working in any capacity till date.
Petitioner is not in a position to controvert this averments in that impugned order and has not enclosed any documentary evidence to substantiate that this factual material is contrary to the documentary evidence. Thereafter, he prays for withdrawal of the writ petition to file fresh, if petitioner is able to procure and produce necessary documentary evidence, to controvert the gaps which have been shown by the District Collector, Sonbhadra as have been mentioned in the impugned order.
In above terms, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 S.K.S.
Kanhaiya Lal
State Of U.P.
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
