Disposed

Tej Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022WRIA/16510/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking regularization of service and pension dues. It observed delays due to lack of instructions from the State and directed the respondent authority to conduct an inquiry and pass a reasoned order within three months if the petitioner files the order copy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authority to conduct an inquiry and pass a reasoned order on the regularization claim within three months from the date of filing the petition copy.

Tej Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16510 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Tej Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

On 14.10.2022, the following order was passed :

¶6

"Grievance of the petitioner is, his claim for regularization forwarded by Committee of Management of the institution Adarsh Palahi Patti Inter College, Palahi Patti, Varanasi, District Varanasi has remained pending with respondent no.3 since 4.8.2017. Five years have passed. The petitioner has since retired from service on 31.3.2022. The petitioner further relies on an earlier decision of this Court in Writ - A No. 22154 of 2018 (Vijay Shyam Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.) decided on 22.10.2018.

¶7

On account of regularization claim having remained pending, the petitioner has not been paid retiral dues in the shape of pension, gratuity, etc.

¶8

Before any positive direction is issued, it is desirable, learned Standing Counsel may obtain clear written instructions as to the fate of the proposal made by the Committee of Management dated 4.8.2017 seeking regularization of the petitioner.

¶9

Put up as fresh on 4 November 2022."

¶10

On the next date, for want of instruction (as informed by the learned Standing Counsel) the below quoted order was passed :

¶11

"1. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states, despite prompt intimation given to the DIOS, Varanasi, he has not sent any instruction.

¶12

2. In the interest of justice, put up as fresh on 11.11.2022, on which date, personal affidavit of the DIOS, Varanasi would be filed explaining his conduct as also he may furnish requisite instruction to the learned Chief Standing Counsel, failing which the said authority shall remain present in Court on the next date and explain why exemplary cost may not be awarded for the delay caused."

¶13

Today, affidavit of compliance of Sri Girish Kumar Singh,

¶14

DIOS, Varanasi has been filed. Relevant portion of paragraph no.3 of the said affidavit reads as below :

¶15

"That in compliance of the aforesaid order, the office of the deponent by letter Patrank Ma./7703/2022-23, dated 03.11.2022 the concerned instructions along with enclosures made available on 03.11.2022 at 19:49 hours evening on email [email protected] of Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad, but due to not file the said instructions before the Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble High Court passed the order on 04.11.2022 in the writ petition in question."

¶16

In view of the above, it appears, the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel has to be more vigilant so as to ensure any instructions received whether through e-mail or other mode before listing of the case be placed on the concerned file and further it be ensured, due communication of the receipt of instruction be made to the concerned learned Standing Counsel.

¶17

It is wholly unacceptable, that matters are being delayed for the conduct of the State either for want of instruction or on account of any inefficiencies existing in the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel such as the one experienced in the present case.

¶18

In view of the above, it is hoped, learned Chief Standing Counsel, State of U.P. would take effective steps and issue appropriate direction, in writing, and seek due compliance of the same to ensure such occurrences do not recur in future.

¶19

Perusal of the personal affidavit reveals, the claim for regularisation made by the petitioner on the strength of proposal made by the Manager of the Institution - Adarsh Palahi Patti Inter College, Palahi Patti, Varanasi dated 04.08.2017 has remained pending with respondent no.3.

¶20

While certain objections have been raised in the personal affidavit to the merits of the claim, it is not for this Court to judge the correctness of the same, at this preliminary stage.

¶21

Since final decision in that regard is to be made by respondent no.3 and that decision is awaited, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case the petitioner files a copy of this order before respondent no.3 within a period of two weeks from today, the said respondent shall cause necessary enquiry to be made, in accordance with law as to the correct facts. He may thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. That exercise may be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.11.2022 Abhilash

¶23

Digitally signed by ABHILASH SINGH Date: 2022.11.11 18:05:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tej Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Bahadur Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Rajni Kumari Lecturer (History)/ in-Charge Principal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shri Krishna Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Uma Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Avesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others