Allowed

Smt. Vijai Luxmi Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2023/1324/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order dispensing with services due to identity dispute, arguing lack of enquiry report supply and no hearing. Court set aside impugned order and directed respondents to supply report and afford hearing before passing a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.09.2021 set aside; liberty granted to respondents to pass fresh order after supplying enquiry report and giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

Smt. Vijai Luxmi Singh Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1324 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Vijai Luxmi Singh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi,Rati Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner in court is taken on record.

¶7

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.09.2021 whereby the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with.

¶8

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2010, however, on account of certain enquiries conducted, an opinion was formed that the petitioner is not the same person and the actual person Vijai Luxmi Singh is married and is residing at Delhi.

¶9

It is argued that prior to passing of the said order, neither the enquiry report, based upon which the order was passed, was ever given to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing to defend herself.

¶10

On the perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the petitioner did not appear despite notices and based upon the enquiry report of the S.T.F., the impugned order has been passed.

¶11

Considering the fact that the report, based upon which the order impugned has been passed, was never supplied to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 is set aside giving liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶12

The petitioner shall appear before the BSA, the respondent no.2, on 14.03.2023 at 12:00 pm and shall produce all the testimonials which are possessed by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 shall handover a copy of the enquiry report, if any, obtained against the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing, he would be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the defense of the petitioner with all expedition.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed off with the said direction .

¶14

Order Date :- 1.3.2023 VNP/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Vijai Luxmi Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vijai Luxmi Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. 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

Vijay Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Pal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Ashish Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Pushkar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Basic Education, Civil Sectt. Govt. of U.P. Lko and Others

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Prakash Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko.and 3 Others