Dismissed¶13

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2025WRIA/10940/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractual worker; termination of services on conclusion of project; orders dated 30.08.2019 and 31.08.2019; writ petition dismissed, no interference; liberty to apply and seek consideration for future projects in accordance with law; State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Abdul Moin, J.; Writ - A No. 10940 of 2025; decision date September 17, 2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; limited liberty that in case any future projects are launched by the respondents, the petitioner may apply and his candidature may be considered in accordance with law. ¶13

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 10940 of 2025

Om Prakash

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Bajpai, Sharad Kumar Rao
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Bhupendra Kumar Bajpai

¶7

Court No. - 4

¶8

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3.

¶10

The petitioner, a contractual worker, is aggrieved by the termination of his services vide order dated 31.08.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

¶11

The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby it has been indicated that as the project has come to an end consequently the persons who are working on contractual basis along with the petitioner have been relieved.

¶12

Once the project has already come to an end as specifically indicated in the order impugned as such there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to have continued.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶14

However, it is provided that in case any future projects are launched by the respondents the petitioner may apply and his candidature may be considered in accordance with law.

¶15

September 17, 2025

¶16

A. Katiyar

¶17

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 2 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

Himanshu Rajput @ Himanshu Vs Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Secy. Joint Entrance Ex. Council, Lko.

Pravesh Kumari Grover Vs Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No 43 Lko. and 2 Others

Sri Rajendra Mani Pandey and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Kishan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Roli Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Govt.Lko. and Another

Om Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others