Disposed

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024WRIA/25/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenges appointment of non-cadre person as officiating Secretary of a society, claiming priority for a subordinate employee. Court found prima facie merit and stayed the appointment pending reply.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay granted on the appointment of opposite party no.5 as officiating Secretary of the Society.

Virendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3. Issue notice to opposite parties 4 and 5 returnable at an early date.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 05.12.2023 whereby opposite party no.5 has been appointed as officiating Secretary of the Society in question.

¶8

It has been submitted that petitioner is working in the aforesaid society since 2016 whereas opposite party no.5 has been brought in on a non-cadre post.

¶9

It is submitted that the current Secretary Ramesh Chandra expressed his inability to continue on aforesaid post on account of his ill-health and therefore such an officiating arrangement was required to be made but the opposite parties were first required to provide officiating charge to petitioner and not to bring opposite party no.5 on a non-cadre post.

¶10

Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 08.01.2024 which are taken on record. It has been adverted that in the Society in question, there are only three persons employed, namely, Ramesh Chandra, Virendra Kumar (petitioner) and one Barsati Lal(Guard). Opposite party no.5 has not been shown as an employee of the Society.

¶11

In view of aforesaid instructions, prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner appear to have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted

¶12

four weeks' time to file their counter affidavit.

¶13

List this case on 20.02.2024 along with WRIT - A No. - 9621 of 2023, since it is stated that similar order is under challenge in said petition as well.

¶14

Till the next date of listing, operation of impugned order dated 05.12.2023 shall remain stayed.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.1.2024 kvg/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. and 4 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

Mrs. Ridhi Pathak and 2 Others vs Managing Director U.P. Power Corporation Lko. and 4 Others

Rajnish Singh @ Ranjish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mumtaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Ishhak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Teepu Salmani @ Mohd. Sahbaan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 2 Others

Ajeet Kumar vs the Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda