Dismissed

Gopal Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024WRIA/6832/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's request for appointment as a Homeguard on compassionate grounds due to a 25-year delay. The Court declined to interfere, as there was no error in the rejection reasons, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to approach Competent Authority again per law; re-engagement not directed.

Gopal Chandra Pandey vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57994

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6832 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Gopal Chandra Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II for the State.

¶7

2. At the very outset, Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.4 of the writ petition, which is a report dated 23.11.2021, whereby the District Commandant Homeguards, Gonda rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that he has approached the authority concerned after lapse of 25 years, therefore, such application may not be considered as per the Government Order.

¶8

3. By means of Annexure No.5 of the writ petition, which is a subsequent letter dated 08.06.2022 preferred by the Junior Staff Officer, Homeguards Headquarter, Lucknow, addressing to the District Commandant, Homeguards, Gonda saying that the petitioner be apprised that his claim for any suitable appointment has been rejected.

¶9

4. Be that as it may, since the claim of the petitioner has already been rejected and the reasons so indicated in the order does not appear to be inappropriate, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders, though those orders have not been assailed, and I am also not inclined to direct the authority concerned to consider the petitioner for re-engagement as Homeguard on compassionate ground.

¶10

5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

¶11

6. However, it is always open for the petitioner to place his grievance before the Competent Authority again if the same can be placed, as per law, and such grievance may be disposed of if the same can be disposed of in terms of prevailing rules and government orders.

¶12

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶13

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Suresh/

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gopal Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 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

Shyam Kumar Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Jagdish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Development Deptt. Lko and Another

Syed Shakeel Ahmad Rizvi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy., Public Works Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Sub Inspector Umesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Sharda Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Ram Shankar Singh vs Union of India Ministry of Railways Thru. Secy. Railway Board and 5 Others