Disposed

Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024WRIA/2932/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim order, the Court disposed of the primary petition by directing the State to ascertain if the petitioner's ad-hoc appointment falls under Section 16-E (11) of the Act of 1921, while adhering to salient directions of a coordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondent to take instruction regarding applicability of Section 16-E (11) of the Act of 1921 to petitioner's appointment.

Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2932 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 5 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pt. S. Chandra,Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6.

¶7

Notice to opposite party no. 5 is dispensed with.

¶8

Under challenge is the Government Order dated 09.11.2023, passed by the opposite party no. 1, whereby the services of all the Teachers appointed on ad-hoc basis in the province of State of Uttar Pradesh was dispensed with.

¶9

The petitioner is also one of the Teachers affected by the order dated 09.11.2023.

¶10

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of Prithavee Pal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order dated 21.03.2024 in Writ-A No. 1614 of 2024.

¶11

Order dated 24.03.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 1614 of 2024 is quoted hereinunder:-

¶12

"1. In pursuance of directions issued on 05.03.2024, learned counsel for opposite parties have been provided written instructions by the opposite parties no. 3 & 5 which are taken on record.

¶13

2. As per instructions received from the opposite party no. 3 the District Inspector of Schools, learned State Counsel submits that petitioners' case is covered under Section 16-E (11) of the Act of 1921. It is also submitted that since no requisition could be sent with regard to the said post, no regular appointment has been made on the post in which petitioners are currently working.

¶14

3. As per instructions received from the opposite party no. 5, the Secondary Education Service Selection Board, it is admitted that no requisition was received by the Commission for selection on the post on which petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers and Lecturers. It is

¶15

also submitted that despite directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh, petitioners did not participate in the examination. However, in view of written instructions and submissions of learned counsel for opposite parties, it is quite evident that despite directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh, no regular selection has taken place for the post of Assistant Teachers and Lecturers in the Shri Narheji Intermediate College, Narhi Rasra, District Ballia while it is admitted that petitioners' appointment is covered in terms of Section 16-E (11) of the Act of 1921.

¶16

4. In view of aforesaid, the opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶17

5. List this case on 24.04.2024.

¶18

5. Until further order of this Court, the opposite parties shall ensure payment of salary to petitioner for the post of Assistant Teachers for the subject in which they have been appointed till regular selection is made."

¶19

Referring the aforesaid, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.

¶20

In view of the above, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State is directed to take instruction that whether the nature of appointment of the petitioner comes under the purview of Section 16-E (11) of the Act of 1921?

¶21

List/Put up this matter on 23.04.2024 as fresh.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 Anurag, PS Gr-I

¶23

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

Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Samujh Vs Shree Pal and Ors.

Bhupesh Dubey Vs Sri Shailendra Verma, S.D.M., Pratapgarh

Shashindra Pratap Pathak Vs Mr. Jay Pratap Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich

Jawahar Lal Maurya vs Mr. Shiv Sharnappa G.N. Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur

Gaurav Pant vs Mr. Surya Pal Gangwar, D.M., Lko.

Ghanshyam Verma vs Sri Santosh Kumar Rai, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ayodhya and Others