Disposed

Pavan Kumar and 6 Others v. State of Up and 5 Others

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024WRIA/13262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought reengagement, salary payment, and a writ quashing an order affecting employment under new outsourcing rules. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority, who must decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to move fresh representation; authority to decide within six weeks of receipt.

Pavan Kumar and 6 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:164987

¶2

Court No. - 10

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13262 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Pavan Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Divendu Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-

¶7

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.3 to issue appropriate directions for reengagement of the petitioners through newly selected Outsourcing Agency i.e. Respondent No. in accordance with the provisions contained in the Clause 3 (4) of the Government Order dated 18.12.2019, Clause 2(4) of the Government Order dated 25.08.2020 and Clause 2(5) of the Government Order dated 18.08.2020.

¶8

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.3 to issue appropriate directions for payment of salary to the petitioners through the previous Outsourcing Agency in respect of works done by the petitioners from 01.01.2024 to till date;

¶9

III. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.03.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4, to the extent it affects the employment of the Petitioners, as being arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of the principles of natural justice."

¶10

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were initially engaged by service provider namely M/s Harsh Enterprises vide letter dated 28.12.2021. It is further argued that pursuant to the same, the petitioners are still working and also paid the salary by the aforesaid service provider till December, 2023. It is further argued that now new Agency namely I.T. World has been given power to make the engagement / appointment of the employees in the institution through service portal.

¶11

It is argued that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the Government Order issued by the State-Government from time to time. He placed reliance upon the Government Order dated 18.08.2020 as well as 29.03.2023 issued by the StateGovernment. It is further argued that once the petitioners were engaged by the service provider, then they became entitled for their re-engagement of service by the new service provider.

¶12

It is argued that though in this regard various representations were made by the

¶13

petitioners before the authorities from time to time but till date no decision has been taken, hence the present writ petition.

¶14

On the other hand it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents that in case the petitioners will submit their fresh representation before the authority, he will take a decision in the matter, expeditiously.

¶15

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 is the competent authority.

¶16

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioners to move a fresh representation ventilating all their grievances before the respondent no.3 namely Joint Director of Education, Prayagraj Region, District Prayagraj within a period of three weeks from today along-with certified copy of this order. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners before the respondent no.3 within the time indicated hereinabove, he is directed to do the needful in the matter as per procedure prescribed in law most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioners before him.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.10.2024

¶18

Swati

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pavan Kumar and 6 Others v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan Kumar and 6 Others v. State of Up and 5 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

Anamika Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Priyanu Katiyar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kedar vs State of Up and 4 Others

Brahmadai vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohan Lal vs State of Up and 5 Others

Suresh Babu vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 10 Others