Disposed

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Prajapati and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2023WRIA/2045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged termination by an outsourcing agency violating government orders. The Court disposed of the writ petition on procedural grounds, directing the respondent authority to decide their representation on service grievances within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 4 to decide the petitioners' representation dated 5.12.2022 within a maximum period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Prajapati and 6… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2045 of 2023 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Prajapati And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Faheem Ahmad,Anand Kumar Srivastava

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Krishna

¶3

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Abhishek Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted petitioners are working in Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh since 2002 to 2013 through outsourcing agency. Thereafter, new outsourcing agency, namely, J-Sharp Technology, D-141-respondent no.6 has been engaged to provide man power, but after some time, respondent no.6 disengaged the petitioners from services, which is gross violation of Para 3 (4) of Government Order dated 18.12.2019 & Para 2 (4) of Government Order dated 25.8.2020. He next submitted that for redressal of their grievances, petitioners have filed representation dated 5.12.2022 before the respondent No. 4, but till date same has not been decided. He next submitted that a suitable direction may be issued to respondent No.4 to decide the representation of the petitioner within stipulated period for which Sri Abhishek Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 has no objection.

¶6

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.4 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 5.12.2022 in light of aforesaid Government Orders maximum within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petitioner is also given liberty to file fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order.

¶7

It is made clear that Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and it is upon the respondent no. 4 to decide the representation of the petitioner after considering the relevant Acts, Rules, Government Orders, Judicial pronouncement made by the Court as well as facts of the case.

¶8

Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Junaid

¶9

Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Prajapati and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Prajapati and 6 Others 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

Heera Lal Vs State of U P and Another

Sachin Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Asha Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Raj Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Maya Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others