Disposed

Madan Gopal Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Edu. Training Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024WRIA/5696/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination of contractual services and recovery directions alleging no prohibition on simultaneous engagement. Court recorded submissions, granted time for counter affidavit, listed matter afresh, and directed suspension of recovery.

What did the court decide?

Stay of recovery instituted against petitioner pending receipt of counter affidavit; case listed for fresh hearing.

Madan Gopal Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5696 of 2024 Petitioner :- Madan Gopal Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Edu. Training Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Srideep Chatterjee,Sameer Kalia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava

¶2

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite party no. 1 while notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 2, 3 & 4 have been accepted by Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.

¶4

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 02.05.2024 whereby contractual services of petitioner with the University have been terminated alongwith directions for instituting recovery from him, on the allegation that he has rendered contractual services simultaneously with two organizations including the University.

¶5

It has been submitted that neither the impugned order nor service contract of petitioner indicates any prohibition of simultaneous engagement of petitioner in two organizations and therefore petitioner was fully entitled for rendering said services for which he has also been paid and therefore there was no occasion to direct recovery from him.

¶6

Prima facie submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite parties no. 2 to 4 are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶7

The opposite parties alongwith the counter affidavit shall bring on record the contract of service between petitioner and the University and to indicate any provision whereunder simultaneous engagement of petitioner with two organizations is prohibited.

¶8

List this case on 21.08.2024, as fresh.

¶9

Until further order of this Court, it is directed that no recovery shall be instituted against petitioner in terms of impugned order dated 02.05.2022.

¶10

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Satish

¶11

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madan Gopal Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Edu. Training Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Gopal Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Edu. Training 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

Deep Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nebu Lal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Shiv Narayan Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Samarjeet and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suhail Alam @ Raja and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Shravan Kumar @ Shravan Kumar Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others