Dismissed

Arjun Maurya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2023WRIA/7735/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal to extend services of employees inducted through a supply agency, holding the petition is not maintainable due to lack of privity between petitioners and responding authorities.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed for non-maintainability due to lack of privity.

Arjun Maurya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125395

¶2

Court No. - 38

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7735 of 2023 Petitioner :- Arjun Maurya And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dhirendra Srivastava, learned State Law OfÏcer appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

On earlier occasions sufÏcient time had already been granted for seeking instructions in the matter. Today when the instant matter is taken up, again time is sought for seeking instructions. Considering the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending only on the ground of seeking instructions.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought the attention of the court over the order dated 26.7.2021 through which it has been clarified that the services of the employees inducted for specific Block Mission Manager cannot be dispensed with without serving charge-sheet and thereafter without considering the evidences against them and the further directions shall be in strict approval of the Head Quarters. In the instant matter certain charges of receiving illegal gratification against the petitioners have been levelled through report submitted by Chief Development OfÏcer, Jaunpur i.e, respondent no.3 to the Mission Director, U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission, Lucknow i.e, respondent no.2 and the same has been recommended by the Agricultural Production Commissioner i.e, respondent no.5.

¶8

After receiving the recommendations for

¶9

dispensing the services of the petitioners specific orders have been passed by respondent no.4 i.e, the Joint Mission Director, U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission, which are under challenge in the instant petition.

¶10

Per contra learned State Law OfÏcer vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to seek the remedy as sought by way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the services of the petitioners have been received through Manpower Supply Agency and against which the order date d 5.4.2023 has been issued and as such there is no role of the petitioners between agency and the Uttar Pradesh State Rural Livelihood Mission, the instant writ petition has been filed against the responding authorities whereas the relation between the agency and the responding authorities were only for supply of the manpower wherein the petitioners were assigned certain duties for performing as per their qualifications.

¶11

By bare perusal of the order dated 5.4.2023 which impugned the present petition it is crystal clear that respondent no.4 only returned the names of the petitioners to the Sams Pvt. Ltd through which the petitioners were assigned certain duties, while performing the duties as assigned to the petitioners certain charges have been levelled specifically with regard to receiving illegal gratification from the beneficiaries. It is crystal clear that there is hardly any relation between the petitioner and the responding authorities and as such the instant writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Writ petition stands dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Rakesh

¶14

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

Arjun Maurya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Maurya and 3 Others 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

Ganga Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs Additional Chier Secretary and 5 Others

Lalit Kumar Vs Union Of India and 2 Others

Chandra Mohan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jai Ram Pandey and 18 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nisha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others