Allowed

Dr Ranjeet Singh v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024SPLA/604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition for salary arrears without impleading the appellant. The High Court held the appellant was a necessary party due to pending related litigation and restored the petition for a fresh hearing before all parties.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01-02-2024 set aside; writ petition restored to original number; matter remanded to Single Judge for hearing after impleading all parties.

Dr Ranjeet Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:156014-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 604 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Dr Ranjeet Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Singh,C.S.C.,Vinay Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shantanu Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the State-respondents and Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶7

Present intra-court appeal is preferred questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 01-02-2024 passed in Writ-A No.1119 of 2024 (Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) . For ready reference, the order dated 01-022024 is extracted as under:-

¶8

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2. Petitioner who has been discharging his duties as officiating principal of the institution from 21.07.2020 to 24.11.2022 for which his signatures were also attested on 05.08.2020 yet he was not paid salary. He has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Savita Gupta v. State of UP & ors passed in Writ-A No.58456 of 2015 decided on 23.12.2015 and Shanti Kumar Tiwari v. State of UP & ors passed in Writ-A No.2631 of 2019 decided on 10.11.2020. He submits that in above regard he has already approached the D.I.O.S. vide letter dated 26.11.2022 but his grievance has not been addressed to.

¶10

3. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in the event direction is issued to the D.I.O.S., Jaunpur namely the 2nd respondent to look into the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary, as admissible to the post of principal, for the period he discharged his duties as principal of the institution though in officiating capacity.

¶11

4. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the D.I.O.S., Jaunpur to look into and consider the grievance of the petitioner as raised in his letter dated 26.11.2022 and shall pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within thirty days of production of certified copy of this order."

¶12

The instant appeal is confined to a narrow compass. While entertaining the appeal on 02-07-2024, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has confined his prayer that the appellant was a necessary party in ongoing lis and without impleading the appellant, the learned Single Judge had passed an order, even though the management and the respondent-petitioner was well conversant with ongoing dispute, which was impugned in Writ-A No.971 of 2017 (Dr. Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of I.P. and 3 others) and even though in the

¶13

contempt application (Civil) No. 941 of 2017(Dr. Ranjeet Singh Vs. Shri Bhaskar Mishra, D.I.O.S, Jaunpur and 2 others), notices were issued and the same is also pending consideration. He is confined his prayer that the matter may be heard by the learned Single Judge, who may hear the appellant also and decide the matter on merits.

¶14

The relief as has been prayed for, is resisted by Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 on the premise that the order is fully complied with and he is working in the institution.

¶15

Considering the factual situation and considering the lis as has been portrayed before us, we are of the opinion that the appellant is a necessary party in the ongoing proceedings. In the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the order dated 01-02-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition is restored to its original number. Let the learned Single Judge decide the matter afresh after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶16

The appeal is accordingly, allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 pks

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr Ranjeet Singh v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Ranjeet Singh v. State of Up 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

Ravis Babu and 4 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Committee of Management Sri Surya Narayan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs Avneesh Kumar Rai and 2 Others

Srichandra Prajapati vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Gyanmati vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Alok Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Priyanka Dubey vs State of Up and 2 Others