Disposed

Aanand Kumar Yadav and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024/1461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking appointment as pharmacists based on prior judgments and batch-wise seniority rules filed a writ petition. The Court directed the respondent to consider a comprehensive representation with requisite documents and judgments within four weeks and dispose of the matter by a reasoned order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.-1 to consider comprehensive representation with documents and judgments within four weeks and dispose of by reasoned order within two months.

Aanand Kumar Yadav and 8 Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16976

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1461 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Aanand Kumar Yadav And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Lalendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

Petitioners, who were technical holder in Pharmacy Ayurvedic/ Yunani are setting up their claims for being appointed as Pharmacist under the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service commission) Rules, 2002 under the U.P. Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 and they say that as per the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Chandra and others v. State of U.P. and others: 2009 SCC OnLine All 480 afÏrmed by Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another v. Santosh Kumar Mishra and another: 2010 (9) SCC 52, later on followed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Chandra Gupta and another v. State of U.P. and another in Writ Petition No.- 1962(SS) 2007 and in the connected matters decided 21st July, 2009.

¶8

Sri Lalendra Pratap Singh submits that as per the letter written by the Director, Auyurvedic Services, U.P. Lucknow to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Auyush Department on 9th October, 2019, 25% of the vacancies of Pharmacist in Ayurvedic hospitals are lying vacant and, therefore, giving benefit of batch-wise seniority and appointment to the petitioners having obtained Diploma between the year 2014 and 2015, the respondents could not give approval to consider the claim of petitioners for appointment. It is submitted that in above regard petitioners have already made representation on 18.10.2022 before opposite party no. 1 i.e the Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Ayush Department, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, but the same has remained pending till date.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that if petitioner makes proper representation to the respondent No.- 1 within a certain period of time which may be prescribed by this Court, the same may be looked into in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court as well.

¶10

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that in the event petitioners approach the respondent No.-1 with a comprehensive representation annexing therewith all the requisite documents including the judgments of this Court and of Supreme Court which are being relied upon hereinabove, within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of by respondent No.- 1 by means of a reasoned and speaking order considering all the aspect of the matter including the legal aspects within a further period of two months.

¶11

Order Date :- 26.2.2024 Nitesh

¶12

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aanand Kumar Yadav and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aanand Kumar Yadav and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vigilance Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Sarojini Thakur Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Devi Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Lko.and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 3 Others