Dismissed

Sudhanshu Dhar Dwivedi v. State of U.P.through Secy.Deptt. of Basic Education

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024WRIA/2501/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court discharged a writ petition challenging termination and appointment order limitations. Ruling that the petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation, the court held no further continuance or reinstatement was possible, dismissing the petition despite preserving benefits from interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with direction that this order shall not affect benefits granted via interim orders.

Sudhanshu Dhar Dwivedi Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30440

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2501 of 2000

¶4

Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Dhar Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.Deptt. Of Basic Education Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Singh,G.K.Pandey,J.N.Mathur,Rama Raman Mishra,Ranjit Singh Patel,Smt. Nalini Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Pandey,J.B.S.Rathore,M.M. Asthana

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 and Mr. S.S. Rajawat, learned counsel for opposite party no.4. No-one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.5.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging Approval Order dated 04.02.2000 to the extent it grants temporary approval of petitioner for appointment only for the current academic session up to 20.05.2000. Also under challenge is the portion of appointment letter dated 07.02.2000 to the extent it indicates appointment of petitioner only up till 20.05.2000 and observation made therein that the post is reserved for the scheduled caste candidates in future. Prayer has also been made for a direction to opposite parties to suitably amend/correct the aforesaid orders and not to create hindrance in petitioner's functioning as Assistant Teacher in the institution even after the current academic session.

¶8

It is seen from the record that initially vide interim order dated 16.05.2000, this Court had directed petitioner's continuance as Assistant Teacher in the institution concerned even beyond 20.05.2000. Special Appeal filed thereagainst was rejected on ground of delay.

¶9

However, it appears subsequently the petition was dismissed in default of appearance on 22.08.2014 and the interim order granted earlier was vacated due to which opposite parties vide

¶10

order dated 07.10.2014 dispensed with the services of petitioner. Petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. The petition was restored to its original number on 22.02.2021.

¶11

Considering aforesaid facts, it is evident that now since petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation, there cannot be any direction for further continuance of his services or even his reinstatement in service, and to that effect, the petition has already lost its efficacy.

¶12

Looking to the aspect that petitioner continued till year 2014 in pursuance of interim direction of this Court, this petition is consigned to record with a clear stipulation that such an order will not have any adverse effect upon benefits granted to petitioner in pursuance of interim directions of this Court dated 16.05.2000.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 kvg/-

¶14

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

Sudhanshu Dhar Dwivedi v. State of U.P.through Secy.Deptt. of Basic Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhanshu Dhar Dwivedi v. State of U.P.through Secy.Deptt. of Basic Education

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

Similar cases

Smt. Asha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Jaikar Pandey and 2 Others vs Mustaqeem Ahmad and 3 Others

Someshwar Nath Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Mahak Singh Vs State of U.P.through Secretary Rural Development and 17 Ors.

Dulara Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sect. Lko. and 5 Others

Sanju Alias Sanju Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others