Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2024WRIA/2429/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the termination of a petitioner's contract engagement under a Municipal Corporation's Standard Operating Procedure. The court held that renewal required a specific recommendation absent here and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the termination order dated 08.12.2023 is dismissed.

Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2429 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Singh,Paresh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pahur Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

Under challenge is the order dated 08.12.2023 08.12.2023, issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Lucknow.

¶7

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was engaged after a scheme which was promulgated as a task force and there are provision in the Standard Operating Procedure for implementation of ex-servicemen as a member of Enforcement Task Force in Municipal Corporation of Uttar Pradesh and specific provisions are envisaged under 26 (e) that maximum tenable services shall be five years. The individual will superannuate on the last day of month in which they complete the employment period. He next added that there is provision of renewal as is apparent form 26 (f) and (g) of SOP. He next added that on place of extending the period of contract of the the petitioner, his services has been terminated, as the opposite parties were annoyed. He next added that no cogent reason has been assigned so far as the termination of contract of the petitioner is concerned. Thus, submission is that the order dated 08.12.2023 may be quashed.

¶8

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation as well as the Additional Chief Standing Counsel have vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that there is provision in the clause 26 (e), (f) and (g) of SOP and invoking those provisions, the services of the petitioner is terminated. He added that since, the petitioner was defying the instructions of his superiors and it was not possible to take work from him and therefore, the engagement of the petitioner on contract basis, has been terminated.

¶9

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it transpires that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis and thereafter, once he ignored the instructions of his superiors, the order was passed on 08.12.2023. So far as, the provision with respect to the SOP is concerned, the contract could be extended, subject to the recommendation of OIC ETF, which is absent in the present matter. Since, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for fixed term and his period of contract is read with the condition of SOP, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim his renewal and continuance in Municipal Corporation.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid submission and discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits.

¶11

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed , accordingly.

¶12

No order as to cost.

¶13

Consigned to records.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.4.2024 Anurag, PS Gr-I

¶15

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

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 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

Deepak Tandon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel Lko. and 3 Others

Pankaj Kumar Shukla and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. (Secondry Education) and 7 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Deptt.of Culture Lko. and 4 Ors.

Sunbreeze One Apartment Residencial Welfare Association Thru. Secy. Sandeep Kumar Pandey Vs Commissioner Lko. Region Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others