Disposed

Gram Panchayat Amahiya Block Banikoder Tehsil Ramsanehighat Thru. Gram Pradhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024WRIA/6984/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders directing a Gram Panchayat to continue a Data Entry Operator in service and pay her dues, founded on a contested 05.09.2021 Gram Panchayat resolution alleged to be forged. Since disputed questions of fact were involved, the court declined to interfere and directed the competent district authority to decide after hearing all parties within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to competent authority (DM/DPRO, Barabanki) to decide after hearing within eight weeks; impugned orders not interfered with but implementation subject to final deci

Gram Panchayat Amahiya Block Banikoder Tehsil… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64823

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6984 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Gram Panchayat Amahiya Block Banikoder Tehsil Ramsanehighat Thru. Gram Pradhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amar Singh,Mahendra Pratap Singh,Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 6, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 7 and Mr. Amar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 8.

¶7

Affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4 is taken on record.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 02.07.2024 as well as the order dated 15.07.2024 pertaining to directions issued to petitioner for continuance of opposite party no. 7 in service as Data Entry Operator and for payment of her dues.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid directions have been issued primarily on the consideration that the domicile certificate of the opposite party no. 7 was verified by a team constituted by the District Magistrate.

¶10

It is submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in an arbitrary manner without adverting to all the aspects required to be taken into consideration particularly the alleged resolution dated 05.09.2021 which petitioner had denounced as a forged and fabricated document and pertained to alleged resolution of the Gram Panchayat regarding selection of opposite party no. 7.

¶11

It is submitted that meeting held on 05.09.2021, was in fact cancelled.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 7, however, has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that not only the resolution dated 05.09.2021 but subsequent orders as well clearly indicates selection of petitioner on the said post.

¶13

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the claim of petitioner as well as opposite party no. 7 hinges on the validity of the resolution of Gram Panchayat dated 05.09.2021.

¶14

Since disputed questions of fact are involved regarding validity of the aforesaid resolution, the opposite party no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Barabanki or the opposite party no. 4 i.e. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Barabanki, whichever being the competent authority is directed to consider grievance of petitioner as well as opposite party no. 7 and to take a final decision thereupon after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, without interfering with the impugned orders at present, petition stands disposed of. The implementation of impugned orders, however, shall be subject to final decision taken by the authority concerned.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Satish

¶17

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

Gram Panchayat Amahiya Block Banikoder Tehsil Ramsanehighat Thru. Gram Pradhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Amahiya Block Banikoder Tehsil Ramsanehighat Thru. Gram Pradhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and 7 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

Km. Neha and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Kiran Lata @ Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Others

Yashpal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Rathor vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Gramya Vikas Lko. and 6 Others

Milk Producer Cooperative Union Limited Prayagraj U.P. Thru. General Manager vs Vinod Kumar Yadav

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another