Allowed

Harish Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2022WRIA/4583/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed impugned orders of reversion and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in his post of District Coordinator pending fresh orders, as he had not been given an opportunity of hearing regarding allegations made in a letter.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned orders; direction to allow petitioner to work in post and pay salary; direction to pass fresh orders after hearing.

Harish Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4583 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the office memorandum dated 17.12.2021 issued by the Director General State Education & State Project Director, U.P. at Lucknow / respondent no.2 and the consequential order dated 22.12.2021 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghazipur / respondent no.5. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to discharge his duties on the post of District Coordinator (Girls Education) on which he has been working since 24.09.2019 on deputation.

¶7

The petitioner claims to have been selected on the post of District Coordinator (Girls Education) in response to advertisement issued by respondent no.2, Director General State Education & State Project Director, U.P. at Lucknow, and was posted at District- Ghazipur, since 27.09.2019. By the impugned orders, the petitioner has been directed to be reverted to his parent post.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the basis of the orders impugned is the letter dated 12.10.2021 of the respondent no. 4, Chief Development Officer, Ghazipur, sent to District Magistrate, Ghazipur, wherein the allegations regarding renewal of contract of service of Smt. Neelam Devi and other employees by the District Coordinator, Ghazipur (the petitioner) have been made. Therefore, the order of reversion passed against the petitioner is stigmatic in nature and the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity of hearing before passing the order.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in the impugned orders, there is no allegation against the petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted

¶11

that his contract of service was for three years but without any reason, it has been terminated and his deputation has been ended.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 17.12.2021 and 22.12.2021, passed by respondent nos. 2 and 5, respectively, are hereby quashed.

¶13

The respondents are directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner regarding the allegation made against him in the letter dated 12.10.2021 of the respondent no. 4, Chief Development Officer, Ghazipur, which was sent to District Magistrate, Ghazipur, by him.

¶14

Till such order is passed, the petitioner would be permitted to work on his post and shall be paid his arrears of salary and current salary forthwith.

¶15

The writ petition is accordingly, allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.4.2022 KS

¶17

Digitally signed by KISHAN SINHA Date: 2022.04.13 16:40:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harish Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Imran Khan Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Laxmi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs the State of U P and 2 Others

Nepal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sumitra Devi and 2 Others Vs M/S S.G. Rockbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Niharika Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others