Disposed

Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 May 2024/2801/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought promotion to Sub-Inspector Civil Police and sanction of a supernumerary post, noting state delay. The bench directed respondents to grant two months for sanctioning the post and disposed of the petition with those directions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents granted two months to sanction a supernumerary post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police for the petitioner's promotion.

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35828

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2801 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Gajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.P. Raju Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Deep Sikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶7

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being disposed of.

¶8

The instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 to sanction one post of SubInspector Civil Police in selection year 2023 in light of letter dated 02.01.2024 as indicated in the order dated 08.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. Further prayer is to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the order dated 08.01.2024, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police has been found sustainable but as no regular post is available, consequently, vide letter dated 08.01.2024, a request has been sent to the State Government for sanction of a supernumerary post so that the petitioner can be promoted on the said post.

¶10

It is contended that till date no sanction has been given by the State Government with the result that the petitioner has not been given promotion as Sub-Inspector Civil Police.

¶11

The Court had required the learned Standing counsel to seek instructions vide order dated 08.04.2024 as to within how much time, the approval would be granted by the State Government pertaining to the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police on supernumerary basis.

¶12

Today, Ms. Deepsikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions sent by Director General of Police,

¶13

Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 09.05.2024, informs that three months further time would be required by the State Government for sanctioning the said post.

¶14

It is not understood as to why the State-respondents, despite the letter having been sent on sent on 08.01.2024 for sanctioning of the said post, require further three months' time, meaning thereby, that despite lapse of more than five months the post has not been sanctioned with the result that the petitioner, who has been found eligible for promotion as SubInspector Civil Police, has still not been promoted.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid, time period of two months is granted to the respondents for sanctioning of the said post as per the relevant rules and the government orders. In case sanction is given for the supernumerary post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police then consequences shall follow.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.5.2024 S. Shivhare

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest and Van U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Kamal Joshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Taruna Saxena vs Union of India Thru. It Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications, and 2 Others

Sukh Das and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others

Smt. Mohini Sindhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Avam Pushtahar Vibhag U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Manish Kumar Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others