Allowed

Vijay Kumar Chaubey v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023WRIA/16025/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition addressed the petitioner's claim for ad-hoc promotion to Head Constable Armourer, which was kept in sealed cover due to a pending criminal case. The Court directed the competent authority to consider the grant of ad-hoc promotion within two months based on a 1997 Government Order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's case for grant of ad-hoc promotion within two months.

Vijay Kumar Chaubey Vs the State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185001

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16025 of 2023 Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Chaubey Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Shiromani Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 5.

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner his case for promotion to the post of Head Constable Armourer had been considered by the departmental promotion committee and kept in sealed cover on 04.08.2017.

¶7

Placing reliance on the government order dated 28.05.1997, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, more particularly paragraph 10 the contention is that where the proceedings are expected to continue for a long period of time the respondents are bound to consider the employee for ad-hoc promotion. Placing reliance on the aforesaid government order the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as a substantial period of time has lapsed since the claim of the petitioner for promotion was kept in sealed cover as such the respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner for ad-hoc promotion in terms of the government order dated 28.05.1997.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel states that as per the instructions received by him there are serious charges which are levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case lodged against him and as such there cannot be any occasion for opening of the sealed cover.

¶9

However, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the contents of the government order dated 28.05.1997 so far as it pertain to consideration of claim of an employee for ad-hoc promotion where the consideration has been kept in the sealed cover and a long period of time has lapsed.

¶10

Accordingly, considering the government order dated 28.05.1997 more particularly paragraph 10 which pertains to consideration of grant of ad-hoc promotion with respect to those employees whose cases have been kept in sealed cover and a substantial period of

¶11

time has lapsed, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of ad-hoc promotion in terms of government order dated 28.05.1997 strictly in accordance with law and the relevance rules.

¶12

Let such a consideration be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 J. K. Dinkar

¶14

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar Chaubey v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Chaubey v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hargovind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr Bharat Ji Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hardev Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Salapa Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others