Disposed

Ram Kripal Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricul. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024WRIA/3001/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition for regularization of services at Acharya Narendra Dev University. The court directed the respondent to consider the claim regarding regularization within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider and decide the claim for regularization of services within eight weeks with a speaking order.

Ram Kripal Yadav and 6 Others vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30386

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3001 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Kripal Yadav And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricul. Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Neelesh Kumar Yadav,Manushresth Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 4.

¶8

Instant writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs :-

¶9

"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and regularize the services of the petitioners on their respective posts in Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumargarnj, Faizabad with stipulated time period.

¶10

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶11

iii) to pass any other suitable order or direction which is deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

iv) Allow the writ petition with costs."

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even after several letters/reminders sent to the Vice Chancellor, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumargaj, Faizabad, no decision has been taken on the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services. He next added that interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 20-02-2024 within stipulated period of time,as may be fixed by this court.

¶14

Learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶15

In view of the above and without entering into the merits of the case, the opposite party no. 2 is hereby directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services within a period of eight weeks, with speaking and reasoned order, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 AKS

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kripal Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricul. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kripal Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricul. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 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

C/M Mahasha Vishen Laghu Madhayamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. through Its Secy.Basic Edu. Up and Others

Nirupama Singh D/O Indra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Aayushi Jain Vs Directorate General U.P. Medical Education and Training Thru. Director General

Ram Nihor Shukla Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications and 2 Others

Rama Shanker Shukla Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications and 2 Others

Ram Kripal Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricul. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others