Disposed

Durgesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024WRIA/6008/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directive for re-engagement as Junior Engineer. Court declined adjudication on merits due to factual complexities, granting liberty to file a fresh representation before the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file fresh representation before Managing Director for consideration and decision within six weeks.

Durgesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52483

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6008 of 2024 Petitioner :- Durgesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akanksha Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Akanksha Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2, 3 & 4 whose power filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for consideration of petitioner's re-engagement/ re-appointment on the post of Junior Engineer on contract basis in parity with other similarly situated persons.

¶7

It has been submitted that earlier petitioner was engaged on contractual basis on the post of Junior Engineer with the U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Sahkari Sangh on 17.10.2017 for a period of 11 months whereafter he was re-engaged in service but the aforesaid contract has ended in 2022.

¶8

It is submitted that petitioner's services was found to be satisfactory by opposite parties and therefore in terms of service conditions, petitioner is entitled to be re-engaged in service on contractual basis.

¶9

For the aforesaid grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation but seeks liberty to file a fresh representation before competent authority. At present learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer for a final decision with regard to same.

¶10

Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case and particularly since adjudication of petitioner's grievance would entail factual aspects, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party No.2 i.e. Managing Director, Headquarters, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow, U.P. who shall be considered and decided the same within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority.

¶11

With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Subodh/-

¶13

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

Durgesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Udai Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Marketing and Foreign Trade Lko and Others

Ajit Kumar Singh and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Min. of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Prayag Datt Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Newanu Sharma vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Kumar Chaubey vs U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director Lko. and Another

Hoshiyar Singh Tarkar @ H.S. Tarkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko and 3 Others