Dismissed¶13

Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development Govt. of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2024/9886/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ under Article 226 where statutory appeal availed and pending; alternate remedy bar; pendency of appeal over three months no cause of action; departmental punishment dated 11.6.2024 (stoppage of two increments permanently, censure); promotion to Head Assistant; appeal before Chief Development Officer, Sitapur filed 8.7.2024; writ petition dismissed with direction for expeditious disposal of appeal; WRIT-A No. 9886 of 2024; Alok Mathur, J.; decided 25.10.2024; 2024:AHC-LKO:72449.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed, with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and decide the pending appeal with expedition. ¶13

Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed, with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and decide the pending appeal with expedition.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when the petitioner has already taken recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal against the same punishment order, and that appeal is pending. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Once the alternate statutory remedy of appeal has already been availed, a writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Pendency of the statutory appeal for more than three months does not, by itself, give the petitioner a cause of action to approach the Court for exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

¶12

Key takeaways

Finding no extraordinary ground for interference, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition.ratio¶13
The appellate authority was directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending appeal with expedition.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.; order dated 25.10.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:72449) — Writ-A No. 9886 of 2024, Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. The petitioner, Senior Assistant in the office of the District Development Officer, Sitapur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a departmental punishment order dated 11.6.2024 (stoppage of two increments permanently with censure entry) and seeking a direction for consideration of his promotion to the post of Head Assistant, although his appeal against the punishment was already pending before the Chief Development Officer, Sitapur (filed 8.7.2024). Held: once the alternate statutory remedy of appeal has been availed, a writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable; mere pendency of the appeal beyond three months confers no cause of action to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction, notwithstanding the urgency of forthcoming departmental promotions. Writ petition dismissed; appellate authority directed to consider and decide the appeal with expedition.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72449

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9886 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Govind Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development Govt. Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmana Singh,Anand Singh Pawar,Nishtha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anand Singh Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

It has been submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Senior Assistant in District Sitapur in the office of District Development officer. Certain departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which resulted in order of punishment sated 11.6.2024 being passed thereby imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments permanently along with censure entry.

¶8

Against the said order of punishment the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before Chief Development Officer, Sitapur on 8.7.2024 which is pending consideration. It is during pendency of the statutory appeal that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of punishment dated 11.6.2024 and further seeking a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Assistant.

¶9

Learned Standing counsel has raised preliminary objection stating that once the petitioner has already taken recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal before the Chief Development Officer, Sitapur, for the same cause of action writ petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is only because of the fact that departmental promotions are going to take place and there is urgency in the matter, as such, he has preferred this writ petition.

¶11

Having heard rival contentions, it is noticed that against the order of punishment dated 11.6.2024 the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the statutory authority on 8.7.2024 and the said appeal is pending. Only on the ground that the said

¶12

appeal is pending for more than three months, does not give a cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Once alternate remedy has already been availed then in such a situation writ petition would not be maintainable. We do not find any extra ordinary ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court declines to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶14

However, the appellate authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal with expedition.

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 25.10.2024 RKM.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development Govt. of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development Govt. of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Balram Pno. No. 830560138 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lok Bhawan Lko and 2 Others

Ali Musi Raza Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Arthur Cocker vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kallu and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another