Disposed

Dr. Adesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023WRIA/10573/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order assigning additional charge of Dean to another officer and mandamus for petitioner's appointment. The court directed the inquiry committee to conclude proceedings within two months and consider the petitioner for the post if exoneration occurs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude disciplinary inquiry within two months and consider petitioner for Dean post if exonerated; no notices to fifth respondent.

Dr. Adesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136681

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10573 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Adesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

The instructions filed today are kept on record and marked as Appendix 'A' and 'B'.

¶7

Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondent no.1 and Sri Rohit Pandey, who appears for Respondents 2 to 4.

¶8

In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the fifth respondent.

¶9

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in T.B. & Chest Department for Rural Institute of Medical Science & Research, Safai, Etawah on 27.09.2006.

¶10

It is further the stand of the writ petitioner that he was accorded additional charge of Medical Superintendent on 09.03.2018. In paragraph-9 of the writ petition, it is further averred that on 31.01.2019, pursuant to the direction of the Vice-Chancellor, he handed over the charge of Patient Kitchen to Dr. I.K. Sharma.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his claim is entitled to be considered as Deen in the aforesaid faculty as per the relevant provisions. Further submission is that the fifth respondent, who is junior to the writ petitioner and the criteria for according benefit is seniority, but the writ petitioner has denied the benefit of the same, particularly in the wake of the fact that an inquiry has been initiated pursuant to the allegation of floating of tender dehors the rule. This Court on 07.07.2023, required the learned counsel appearing for the University to seek instructions.

¶12

Today, the instructions dated 10.07.2023 under the signature of the second respondent, Vice-Chancellor, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Science, Saifai, Etawah has been produced.

¶13

The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated

¶14

19.11.2022 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Science, Saifai, Etawah by which he has handed over additional charge of Dean to Respondent no.5, Dr. Usha Shukla and a mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to accord benefit to the writ petitioner as the Dean.

¶15

Today, when the matter has been taken up, Sri Rohit Pandey has produced before this Court, a charge sheet served upon the writ petitioner dated 15.2.2022 and also the reply submitted by the writ petitioner to it. According to Sri Pandey, a supplementary charge sheet has been issued, to which reply has been submitted by the petitioner.

¶16

Sri Rohit Pandey has made a statement at Bar that a direction be issued to conclude the disciplinary proceedings stated to be pending against the writ petitioner within the time stipulated therein and in case the writ petitioner is exonerated in the same, he shall be considered for being accorded joining on the post of the Dean in the faculty in question.

¶17

To such submission, Sri Srivastava has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same. However, he submits that he has already filed his objection to the parent charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet and the same may, if required, be proceeded to be decided with utmost expedition.

¶18

At this juncture, Sri Pandey further submits that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition.

¶19

Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by the them, the writ petition is disposed off without seeking any response with a direction to the inquiry committee so constituted by the University itself to conclude the inquiry proceedings within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and in case, the petitioner is exonerated, then he shall be considered to be conferred the benefit of according joining on the post in question. The aforesaid order is subject to the cooperation of the writ petitioner.

¶20

Sri Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel also appears for respondent no1 has also adopted the argument of Sri Pandey.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 N.S.Rathour

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Adesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Adesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Dr. (Smt.) Sunita Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Mahendra Giri Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dr. Hari Ram Yadav Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Arun Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Directorate of School Education, Aligarh Muslim University and 3 Others