Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2022WRIA/4313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge observed that in light of the prior order dated 30.6.2015 and the judgment in Writ-A 15327 of 2021, petitioners should file a fresh representation. The court disposed of the present writ petition by directing petitioners to submit such representation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit fresh representation to respondent no.1 within two weeks; respondent to decide within three months.

Dinesh Kumar and 17 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4313 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar And 17 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the State.

¶6

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners who are 19 in numbers for following reliefs:-

¶7

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) as well as Compounders/ Pharmacists in Ashram Padhati Vidyalaya run by the State of U.P. within the time specified by the Hon'ble Court.

¶8

"B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay regular salary to the petitioners as being paid to the regular Assistant Teacher (L.T. grade), Lecturer and Compounders/ Pharmacists from month to month, if and when, the same falls due."

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the judgment of this Court in Writ-A 15327 of 2021 (Madhu Singh & 89 Ors Vs. State of U.P & Anr) decided on 7.1.2022. The order dated 7.1.2022 reads as under:-

¶10

"The petitioners who are 90 in number claimed that they were Assistant Teachers in various schools which were run under the Ashram Padhyati Vidyalaya. The pay etc. of the petitioners is given by the State Government. It was also claimed that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis against the sanctioned posts after due advertisement etc.

¶11

However, when on 30.6.2015 the State Government on the request of various teachers for regularization came up with a resolution that such teachers who were appointed on contract basis would be regularized, the petitioners expected that their services would be regularized. In this regard, they also represented to the respondent no.1. When no result came of

¶12

their efforts, the instant writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus that the respondents be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners.

¶13

It has been contended by Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari and Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that after the coming of the communication/report dated 30.6.2015 which was submitted by a Committee constituted under the order of the Government dated 13.2.2015, the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that their services would be regularized and they would be absorbed in various institutions.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he would like to take instructions as to whether any further Government Order etc. had been issued for the regularization of teachers in pursuance of the report dated 30.6.2015.

¶15

Be that as it may, the Court is of the view that since the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 13.2.2015 had resolved to regularize the teachers working on contract basis, it would be in the fitness of things that the petitioners may once again represent to the respondent no.1Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department and Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow ventilating all their grievances. If such a representation is filed before the respondent no.1 along with a certified copy of this order, then the respondent no.1 shall, after looking into the recommendations of the Committee, decide the claims of the petitioners within a period of three months.

¶16

Needless to say that to implement the recommendation of the Committee, the respondent no.1 may also come up with a proper Government Order.

¶17

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of ."

¶18

Learned Standing counsel admits that the aforesaid judgment is squarely application to the present matter.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioners may make a fresh representation with regard to their grievance of regularization on the post of Assistant Teachers, Lecturers and Compounders/ Pharmacists in the Institution i.e. Ashram Padhati Vidayalaya within two weeks before respondent no.1 along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the same, in light of the judgment of WritA 15327 of 2021 (Madhu Singh & 89 Ors Vs. State of U.P &

¶20

Anr) decided on 7.1.2022, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.4.2022 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.04.01 13:21:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Thakur Shiv Narain Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M, Janta Higher Secondary School, Meerut Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobhit Bakshi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shashi Kala Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

C/M Janta Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Aneeta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others