Allowed

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Labour Lko. and Others v. Arvind Kumar Singh

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2024CMRA/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court recall order sets aside the judgment dated 13.03.2024 in Writ-A No. 29977 of 2019. The court found an apparent factual error regarding the petitioner's status as a permanent employee versus a temporary appointee and directed the matter to be heard afresh.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 13.03.2024 is recalled; the writ petition is restored to its original number and listed for hearing afresh.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Labour… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29939

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 132 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Labour Lko. And Others Opposite Party :- Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mayankar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The present review application has been preferred for review of the judgement and order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 29977 of 2019.

¶8

Learned counsel for the review-applicant/ respondent in the writ petition i.e. the State Government has submitted that the facts mentioned in Para Nos. 9, 11(i) and 11(ii) are not in consonance with the pleadings made in the writ petition or any of the affidavits filed in the writ petition.

¶9

It is further submitted that that the petitioner is not a permanent employee in the department. He was given temporary appointment and was never confirmed but in the judgement it has been mentioned that the petitioner has become permanent employee and the services of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with without following the procedure of law as the learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the petitioner is permanent employee and without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing as per the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999 the impugned termination order has been passed which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, which is contrary to the record of the writ petition.

¶10

It is further submitted that in Para 11 it has been mentioned that services of the petitioner has been regularized after following due procedure of law which is also not the case either in the writ petition or any of the affidavits as the services of the petitioner was never regularized.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner/ respondent in the present review application has submitted that even a temporary appointed person is covered within the purview of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999 but unable to dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the review-applicant.

¶12

At the time of arguments the case of petitioner was

¶13

pressed on the basis that he was a permanent employee which fact does not appear to have been controverted by the State counsel, hence this factual error apparent on the face the record occurred, therefore, the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 29977 of 2019 is hereby recalled.

¶14

The writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶15

Office is directed to list the writ petition before the Court concerned for hearing afresh, having jurisdiction entertaining such matter.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.5.2025 DiVYa

¶17

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

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Labour Lko. and Others v. Arvind Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Labour Lko. and Others v. Arvind Kumar Singh

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

Maihar Cement (Merged With Ultratech Cement Ltd.) Thru. Authorized Signatory Rakesh Jaisalmeria vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Soni @ Rinku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Niyamat vs Sri Sanjay Mishra Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Distt. Gonda

Madhuri vs Shri Devanand Tiwari Tehsilsar Tehsil Lambhua, Sultanpur

Ramesh Kumar Yadav vs Vinod Kumar Chaudhari, Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Sadar

Nand Kumar Singh Vs Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Tehsildar, Mandal Ayodhya, Tehsil Milkipur, Distt. Ayodhya