Allowed

Smt. Shruti Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024WRIA/7551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, quashed an order deeming the petitioner a surplus employee and transferring her. The discharge was based on subsequent orders directing the teacher the petitioner had displaced to resume duties at her original posting.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 28.08.2024 deeming the petitioner surplus and transferring her was quashed.

Smt. Shruti Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63466

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7551 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Shruti Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Abhay Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Tiwari,Ran Vijay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1, 2 and 4, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and Mr. Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite parties 5 and 6. In view of order being passed in this petition, notices to opposite party no.7 stand dispensed with.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 28.08.2024 whereby petitioner has been deemed to be a surplus employee in the Primary School, Bhilawan Nagar Kshetra, Zone-I, Lucknow and has therefore been transferred/adjusted elsewhere.

¶8

The primary submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is placed at the aforesaid Primary School on a substantive basis whereas opposite party no.7 was only under attachment with aforesaid Primary School and therefore there was no occasion for opposite parties to have treated petitioner to be surplus. It is submitted that at the most, the attachment of opposite party no.7 could have been rescinded.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite parties 5 and 6 have been provided written instructions dated 10.09.2024 issued by the Secretary of U.P. Basic Education Board as well as order dated 09.09.2024 issued by Chief Development Officer, Lucknow and consequential order dated 10.09.2024 to submit that all the Teachers attached in other Primary Schools have been directed

¶10

to resume duties in their original place of posting and in pursuance thereof, opposite party no.7 has already been relieved for rejoining at her original place of posting on 11.09.2024 and therefore now the grievance of petitioner stands redressed.

¶11

Aforesaid orders dated 09.09.2024 and 10.09.2024 are taken on record.

¶12

In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 so far as it relates to petitioner is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.

¶13

Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.9.2024 kvg/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Shruti Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shruti Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 6 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

Arun Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Education (Secondary) and 4 Others

Ganga Sagar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunication Ministry Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Tele Communications Ministry New Delhi and 2 Others

C/M , Kanya Junior High School Thru. Manager Sri Jiya Lal Vishwakrma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education and 2 Others

Punit Kumar Mishra Vs Chairman Aryavart Bank Head Office Lko and 5 Others

Lalji Kewat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and Another