Disposed¶15

Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2025/207/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UP writ petition disposed of; rejection (order dated 19.09.2023) of representation for attachment with Barabanki Depot upheld by non-interference; petitioner former contract-basis Conductor (about 20 years' service) whose contract expired unrenewed; no provision under Corporation rules/regulations for the sought adjustment/attachment; liberty to Corporation (UPSRTC/U.P.) to engage petitioner in alternate suitable employment on fresh representation; Lucknow Bench, Manish Mathur J., 13.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Corporation to engage petitioner in any other suitable employment, in case so desired, upon a representation being made by the petitioner; otherwise no interference with the impugned order. ¶15

Mahendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any occasion for the Court to interfere with the order dated 19.09.2023 rejecting the petitioner's representation for being attached with the Barabanki Depot.

¶13

Court's answer

The Court held that there is no occasion to interfere with the order impugned (rejection of the petitioner's representation for attachment with the Barabanki Depot), particularly as the petitioner is admittedly no longer in the employment of the Corporation.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

There does not appear to be any provision under the rules or regulations of the Corporation for granting the relief sought by the petitioner.

¶12

Key takeaways

In view of the petitioner having rendered service with the Corporation for the past 20 years, liberty is granted to the Corporation to engage the petitioner in any other suitable employment, in case so desired, upon a representation being made by the petitioner.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ-A No. 207 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; order dated 13.1.2025): Mahendra Pal Singh, earlier engaged by the Corporation on contract (11-month engagements, repeatedly renewed) as a Conductor, had applied to be attached to the office instead of the field; his representation for attachment with the Barabanki Depot was rejected by order dated 19.09.2023 on the ground that there is no provision whereby a person engaged on contract basis for a particular employment can be adjusted or attached to another post. By the time of hearing his contract had expired without renewal and he was admittedly not in the Corporation's employment. Finding no provision in the Corporation's rules or regulations for the relief sought, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the Corporation, in view of the petitioner's 20 years of service, to engage him in any other suitable employment upon a representation by the petitioner.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2267

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 207 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Mahendra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandresh Yadav,Niharika Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 19.09.2023 whereby petitioner's representation for being attached with the Barabanki Depot has been rejected.

¶9

As per submissions of learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, it transpires that petitioner had earlier been engaged by the Corporation on contract basis for a period of 11 months, which was renewed from time to time. It also appears that petitioner was engaged on the post of Conductor in the buses plied by the Corporation but subsequently on account of certain circumstances, made an application for being attached to the office instead of in the field.

¶10

The impugned order has been passed primarily on the ground that there is no provision whereunder a person engaged on a contract basis for a particular employment can be adjusted or attached on some other post.

¶11

It also appears from the record that in the meantime, subsequent to passing of the impugned order, petitioner's contract with the opposite parties has expired without any further renewal and, therefore, admittedly he is not in the employment of the Corporation at all.

¶12

There also does not appear to be any provision under the rules or regulations of the Corporation for granting relief as has been sought by the petitioner.

¶13

In view thereof, there does not appear to be any occasion to interfere with the order impugned.

¶14

However, in view of the fact that petitioner has rendered service with the Corporation for the past 20 years, liberty is granted to the Corporation to engage petitioner in any other suitable employment, in case so desired, upon a representation being made by the petitioner.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 13.1.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Vijay Ayurvedic Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre Thru. Its Dirr. Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs the Union of India Thru. Its Secy., Ministry of Ayush, New Delhi and Others

Dr. K.L. Patel College of Professional Studies Thru. Authorized Signatory Amrendra Bhusan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Technical Education, Lko. and Others

Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Thru. General Manager Sri. Nanjappa Gowder Varadharajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education, Lucknow and Others

Mohini Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Kumar II Vs U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Thru. Director and Another

Shree Chandrabhan Singh Degree College, Faculty of Pharmacy Thru. Authorized Signatory Sumit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and 4 Others