Disposed

Shiv Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary Revenue Department, and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2022/1626/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularization of services as a Collection Peon, arguing junior regularization. Court directed respondent to dispose of a pending representation within four weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within four weeks.

Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1626 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary Revenue Department, And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for regularising the services of the petitioner on the post of regular Collection Peon in Tehsil-Sadar, District Sultanpur against the vacant post. On the date on which the person junior to him has been regularized with all consequential benefits.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Seasonal Collection Peon and in the seniority list of Seasonal Collection Peons, the name of petitioner is mentioned at serial no.37. The name of Mr. Amar Deo Tiwari finds place at serial no.39 and his services have already been regularized by means of an order dated 22.02.2022

¶8

Against the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, the petitioner has already given a representation to the District Magistrate praying that his services as Seasonal Collection Peon be regularized.

¶9

Keeping in view the fact that Mr. Amar Deo Tiwari, who is junior to the petitioner has been regularized, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is confining his prayer with direction to the opposite party no.2 to take a suitable decision on his representation.

¶10

The learned Standing Counsel has no objection on the prayer to this writ petition.

¶11

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts,, a direction is issued to the opposite party no.2 to consider and dispose the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2022, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.3.2022 Ashish pd./Jaswant

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.03.29 11:22:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary Revenue Department, and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary Revenue Department, and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Akash Srivastava@ Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Tahiyaat Ali @ Bachcha Vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary Home

Sushil Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secy.Dept.of Home Lko.

Dilip Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. of Labour Govt.of U.P. Civil Secrtt. Lko and Others

Ram Milan Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow and Ors.