Quashed

Rathore Security Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023WRIC/58589/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for training fees under a government scheme. The court directed the authority to take a fresh decision as it failed to conduct the mandatory second inspection required after granting time for improvements.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of impugned order dated 18.04.2016 and direction to Respondent no.2 to take a fresh decision within twelve weeks.

Rathore Security Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs State… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135697-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58589 of 2016

¶4

Petitioner :- Rathore Security Service Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by respondent no.2, Commissioner (Rural Development) U.P., Lucknow rejecting the representation of the petitioner in respect of payment of training fee under Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana as per Government Order dated 29.06.2009.

¶7

Under the aforesaid scheme, the petitioner was granted permission to impart training of security guard to 200 persons from District Mahoba and 4000 persons from District Hamirpur. The Government Order stipulated that after start of training, within seven days, the Project Director alongwith his team, shall inspect the training centre and if during inspection, it is found that the training is being given in satisfactory manner, then 30% of the payment would be released in favour of the organization giving training within next ten days of start of training. In case the training was not being given in a satisfactory manner, then fifteen days time would be granted for making improvements and thereafter a second inspection would be carried out within one week after due intimation to the Organization. On completion of

¶8

training, 40% more amount would be released. In respect of those organizations which had undertaken the responsibility of placement, payment would be released to them after 70% of the trainees are successfully given placement. For organizations which are not bound by the said condition, remaining payment would be released on successful completion of the training.

¶9

The respondents had already paid training fee to the petitioner in respect of several Blocks falling under District Hamirpur except Development Block Maudaha. The ground for denial to make payment of the training fee for Block Maudaha is that when inspection was made on 12.7.2010, 300 trainees were found loitering around and no attendance register was produced. The respondents have concluded that the training was not being given in a satisfactory manner.

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Government Order, in case during first inspection it transpires that the training was not being awarded in a proper manner, then an opportunity for making improvement had to be given followed by a re-inspection. It is submitted that in the instant case, after first inspection, the petitioner made improvement in the training standard and also successfully awarded the training to all the trainees. The respondents did not carry out the second inspection to verify that the training was being given properly. Consequently, the default, if any, was on their part and for which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer nor training fee could be withheld.

¶11

Sri G.C. Saxena, learned standing counsel appearing for the State placed reliance on the counter affidavit wherein the respondents have tried to suggest that the petitioner had through different communications intimated different dates for start of training and it had also raised a claim for higher number of trainees without getting the list verified from the authorities. He also did not produce the attendance register for verification. He, however, fairly concedes that the impugned order does not even allude to the plea raised by the petitioner that it was the duty of the State respondents to have carried out second inspection. Moreover, the grounds taken in the counter affidavit are not mentioned in the impugned order. He submits that an opportunity be granted to the respondents to re-visit the entire matter and take a fresh decision.

¶12

Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid stand, we hereby quash the impugned order dated 18.04.2016. Respondent no.2 is directed to take a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of the instant order.

¶13

The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶14

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 10.7.2023 SL

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rathore Security Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathore Security Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Vishnu Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shriniwas Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikram Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 2 Others

District Civil Court Bar Association and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Gaytri Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Badri Narain Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others