Dismissed

Ajay Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2024SPLA/274/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal filed challenging the rejection of interim relief in a writ petition against termination of contractual employment. The Appellate Court held that since the principal termination order was by a private agency, the writ was not maintainable against them, and the single judge was not bound by another Bench's interim order.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal against the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 dismissing the interim prayer is dismissed.

Ajay Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75890-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 274 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Krishna Madhav Shukla, Advocate

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Shri V.P. Nag, Standing Counsel

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while requiring the respondents to file counter affidavit, based on the submissions made pertaining to the maintainability of the writ petition, the prayer for interim relief has been rejected.

¶8

The appellant aggrieved of the termination of his contractual employment by the placement agency, questioned the validity of the said termination by filing the writ petition and along with the writ petition made a prayer for interim relief.

¶9

Before the learned Single Judge, a plea was raised that order has been passed by the placement agency against whom a writ petition is not maintainable and that the filing of the writ petition before the Bench at Lucknow is also without jurisdiction.

¶10

Learned Single Judge, as noticed hereinbefore, while requiring the respondents to file a counter affidavit and granted liberty to the appellant to file rejoinder affidavit, based on the objections rejected the application for interim relief.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that as the consequential order has been passed by the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital, who is a State Authority, the writ petition would be maintainable. Further submission has been made that in a similar nature matter, interim order was granted at Allahabad in WRIT-A No.14679 of 2024 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge should have followed the said interim order.

¶12

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material

¶13

available on record.

¶14

Admittedly, the order terminating the engagement of the appellant has been passed by one Haad Service and Construction Private Limited. Apparently, a placement agency pursuant to which the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital passed the consequential order dated 4th September, 2024 terminating the engagement of the appellant. The mere fact that the consequential order has been passed by the State Authority, cannot make the petition maintainable as the principal order has been passed by a private placement agency, who is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

So far as the grant of interim order at Allahabad in WRIT-A No.14679 of 2024 is concerned, the said interim order did not contain any cogent reason so as to make it binding on the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise, interim orders do not have precedent value and in those circumstances the learned Single Judge was not bound to pass an interim order on account of passing of the interim order in a purportedly similar writ petition.

¶16

In view of the above discussions, no case for interference is made out in the order impugned.

¶17

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed .

¶18

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶19

Order Date :- 19.11.2024 Rakesh/-

¶20

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

Ajay Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and 6 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

Cane Commissioner U.P.Lucknow and 3 Ors. Vs Dhani Ram Verma

State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Secondary Edu.and Ors. Vs Roshan Jahan

Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs Dr. Ram Singh and Others

Masarrat Husain Vs Union of India Throu Secy. Deptt.of Culture N.Delhi-I and Ors.

Mohd. Khursheed Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 2 Others

Pradeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Avas U.P. Lko. and 3 Others