Dismissed

Purshottam Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Evam Panchayatraj Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024/4763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-appointment of a petitioner in a fresh recruitment drive. The Court held that since the petitioner's one-year contractual term expired by efflux of time and was not extended, no right to continuation existed, making termination procedures inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the refusal to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Sahayak is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Purshottam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45333

¶3

Court No. - 18

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4763 of 2024

¶5

Petitioner :- Purshottam Yadav

¶6

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Evam Panchayatraj Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Yadava,Ram Suphal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Yadava, learned counsel for petitioner, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 7 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.8.

¶9

Petition has been filed challenging resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 04.11.2022, letter dated 30.04.2024 by Gaon Sabha and advertisement dated 07.06.2024 issued for recruitment on the post of Panchayat Sahayak/ Account-Cum- Data Entry Operators.

¶10

It has been submitted that petitioner was initially engaged on service on the aforesaid post on contractual basis on 30.10.2021 on a fixed honorarium of Rs.6000/- per month whereafter he has been continued in service till May 2024 but has been restrained from functioning and a fresh advertisement as impugned has been issued.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to paragraph 16 of the Government Order dated 25.07.2021 to submit that in case of unsatisfactory work, it was incumbent upon opposite parties to have followed the procedure indicated therein and to have issued a show cause notice and provided an opportunity of hearing to petitioner prior to dispensing with his service. He has also adverted to the resolution dated 04.11.2022 to submit that the contract of service of petitioner was not extended impliedly due to unsatisfactory service, which clearly indicates a violation of Government Order. He further submits that ever since November 2022 till May 2024, opposite parties have been taking work from petitioner without payment of honorarium.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner was initially appointed on 30.10.2021

¶13

on contract basis on a fixed honorarium and as per Government Order dated 25.07.2021, the term of such contract was one year as per paragraph 10 (vii) thereof which also provides for extension of contract services in case the Gaon Sabha deems so fit. It is submitted that in the resolution of Goan Sabha dated 04.11.2022, an open meeting was held and no necessity was found for continuation or extension of petitioner's contractual services. It is therefore submitted that since petitioner's contract came to an end by efflux of time, there is no vested right accrued for continuation of services and that paragraph 16 is also inapplicable since the contractual period had ended.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident and admitted by the petitioner in paragraph no.5 of writ petition that he was initially engaged on the said post on contractual basis on 30.10.2021 on a fixed honorarium. Paragraph 10 (vii) of the Government Order dated 25.07.2021 clearly indicates that such contractual services would be for a period of one year only whereafter it shall be discretion of the Gaon Sabha to extend the contractual services in case of satisfactory work but only subject to a maximum period of two years.

¶15

Once it is admitted by the petitioner that he was appointed on 30.10.2021, then in terms of paragraph 10 (vii) of the aforesaid Government Order dated 25.07.2021, such contractual services were only for a period of one year subject to continuation in terms of resolution of the Gaon Sabha. In such circumstances, it is clear that petitioner's contractual service came to an end by efflux of time on 30.10.2021and vide resolution dated 04.11.2022, Gaon Sabha declined to extend the period of contract merely indicating the fact that all the members declined to extend contractual services of petitioner. The impugned resolution has thereafter been approved on 30.04.2024 by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. It is quite evident that there is no discussion with regard satisfactory or dis-satisfactory service of petitioner.

¶16

In the considered opinion of this Court, conditions indicated in paragraph 10 of Government Order dated 25.07.2021 would be inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances where the contractual period has ended by efflux of time. The said paragraph 16 of the Government Order would in fact the applicable only in cases where services of the contractual employee are being dispensed with mid term, which is not the present case.

¶17

In view of aforesaid, since condition enumerated in

¶18

paragraph 16 of the Government Order dated 25.07.2021 are inapplicable and there does not appear to be any right vested in the petitioner for continuation of contractual period, the petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶19

Order Date : - 4.7.2024 Subodh/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Purshottam Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Evam Panchayatraj Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Evam Panchayatraj Deptt. Lko. and 7 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Narendra Deo Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Dairy Development U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Sanehi Yadav Vs District Inspectior of Schools a.Nagar and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Chairman Zila Shkari Bank Ltd. Sitapur and 3 Others

Dileep Kumar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief/Prin. Secy., Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Hadikun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Alma Praveen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others