Allowed

Dhan Raj v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Lukcnow and Ors.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024WRIA/16161/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order rejecting an appeal was illegal and arbitrary as the petitioner never filed the appeal. The court quashed the order relating to the petitioner and directed the authority to consider his fresh appeal within three months. It also ordered consideration of judgments for similarly situated employees.

What did the court decide?

The illegal order dated 22.07.2015 was quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner. A writ petition allowed directing the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's fresh appeal filed within

Dhan Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Panchayat… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69884

¶2

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16161 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Dhan Raj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Lukcnow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla,Maneesh Singh,Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶6

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of Safai Karmachari by direct recruitment under the Group-D Government Servant Rules, 1985 and the merit list for the said selection was published on 19.09.2008 and appointment letters were issued on 24.11.2009. In pursuance of the said appointment, the petitioner joined in 2009 itself. Subsequent it seems that some complaints were made against the working of the petitioner and the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings which concluded on 06.08.2011 and penalty of withholding one increment permanently was passed against the petitioner.

¶7

The petitioner in the present writ petiton has challenged the order dated 22.07.2015 which has been passed by Dy. Director of (Panchayuat), Faizabad Mandal Faizabad wherein he has rejected the appeal preferred by 42 persons including the petitioner whose name find mentioned at serial No. 15. The contention of the petitioner is that he had never filed an appeal against the order of punishment dated 06.08.2011 but illegally the impugned order dated 22.07.2015 mentions that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. Even in the counter affidavit, this aspect has not been disputed inasmuch as in paragraph No. 15 of the counter affidavit the State has not disputed the contention of the petitioner in this regard.

¶8

Accordingly, when the petitioner had not preferred an appeal, it was not open for the appellate authority to have passed an order rejecting his appeal. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22.07.2015 inasmuch it pertains to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly quashed so far it relates to the petitioner.

¶9

In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that because of the impugned order, he could not prefer an appeal and accordingly he may be permitted to file an appeal and the appellate authority may be directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously.

¶10

Learned Standing counsel does not raise any objection in this regard.

¶11

Accordingly, it is provided that in case an appeal preferred by the petitioner within next two weeks before the appellate authority, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of next three months from the submissions of the same in accordance with law.

¶12

The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the appellate authority.

¶13

The appellate authority shall also consider the judgement passed by this Court with regard to other similarly situated employees.

¶14

With the above observations / directions, the writ petition stands allowed .

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 17.10.2024 Ravi/

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhan Raj v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Lukcnow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhan Raj v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Lukcnow and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Sri Pal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt.Lko.andORS.

Manoj Kumar Misra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko and 2 Others

Jameel Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. Forest Govt. Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Ramakant Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko and 3 Others

Sub Inspector Anand Kumar Pno. 172700122 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Satendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Lko. and 4 Others