Petitioner claims regularisation under U.P. Act 1982 Sections 33C and 33G. Court declines to adjudicate directly, directing original authority to inquire and decide the claim within three months.
Directions to respondent to call reports and pass reasoned order on regularisation claim within three months.
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. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5246 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rohitashva Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, at present it transpires, petitioner is claiming regularisation under Section 33C read with Section 33G of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. That claim is pending before respondent No. 2.
Briefly, it has been disclosed, petitioner was appointed Lecturer (Sociology) on 08.7.1992 at Sri Gandhi Smarak Krishak Inter College, Bera, Mathura. He further claims to have worked at that institution, in that capacity, continuously. The petitioner further discloses financial approval granted by the DIOS on 23.7.1998. In such facts, petitioner claims entitlement to regularisation under Section 33C of the Act or alternatively under Section 33G of the Act.
While objection has been raised by the State to the claim made by the petitioner, at present it is not for this Court to adjudicate the claim made since the original authority i.e. respondent No. 2 is ceased with the matter. Further, the fact that petitioner's claim made earlier for payment of arrears of salary may have been rejected and that dispute is pending before this Court in Writ-A No. 4433 of 2014, Rohitashva Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the same may not create legal impediment to deal with and decide the petitioner's claim for regularisation as that claim
has to be dealt with and decided in accordance with the statutory provisions referred to above.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case petitioner files a copy of this order before respondent No. 2, the said respondent shall call for necessary reports from the DIOS as also the Committee of Management and pass appropriate reasoned order dealing with the petitioner's claim as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner.
Order Date :- 23.11.2022 Faraz
Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.23 17:04:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court can adjudicate the petitioner's claim for regularisation pending in the original authority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rohitashva Kumar
State Of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
