Dismissed¶24

Aleem v. State of U.P. through Principal Secy.

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2025WRIA/1312/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily wager; 240 days continuous service test; regularization of Class-IV peon; muster roll labour; Work Charged Establishment; verbal termination of services; Sharda Sahayak Irrigation Department, Hardoi; Junior Engineer office; Government Order dated 07.02.1997; salary June-August 1997; no interim order passed; writ petition infructuous after long gap; recall/restoration of order dated 16.12.2019; C.M. Application No.17 of 2020; writ dismissed; certiorari and mandamus reliefs.

What did the court decide?

On the material before the court, the petitioner had not worked 240 days continuously in a calendar year (per the counter affidavit: 146 days in 1995, 128 days in 1996 and 78 days in 1997). ¶23

Aleem Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19508

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1312 of 1998

¶4

Petitioner :- Aleem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Counsel for Petitioner :- D.C.Misra,Dinesh Chandra Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

(C.M. Application No.17 of 2020)

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8

This is an application for restoration/recall of order dated 16.12.2019.

¶9

The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application is sufficient.

¶10

Accordingly, the application is allowed .

¶11

The order dated 16.12.2019 is hereby recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶12

Order on the Petition

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as perused the record.

¶14

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

¶15

" a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorary thereby quashing or allowing the services of the humble petitioner by the opp. parties and to pay the salary of the past three months 1.e., with effect from June to August, 1997,

¶16

b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamous commanding the opp.parties to stay the verbal termination of services as peon in class IV of the petitioner,

¶17

c) any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper may also be pleased to pass in favour of the petitioner against the opp. parties."

¶18

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Poen i.e. Class-IV post in

¶19

the office of the Junior Engineer, Sharda Sahayak, Irrigation Department, Hardoi. It has also been admitted by him that no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

The State has taken specific stand in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has worked 146 days in the year 1995, 128 days in the year 1996 and 78 days in the year 1997 in the Department as Daily Wager and the petitioner has not worked 240 days continuously in a calendar year.

¶21

It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that according to Government Order dated 07.02.1997, only muster roll labour can be appointed in the Work Charged Establishment, who have completed 240 days continuously and on the date of issuance of the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioner has not worked 240 days continuously.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has worked more than 240 days and therefore, his services were liable to be regularized.

¶23

What comes out is that the petitioner has filed this writ petition, but no interim order was passed and the petitioner has not worked 240 days continuously in a calendar year. The writ petition after such long gap of time has become infructuous so far as the reliefs is concerned, therefore, no relief can be granted.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶25

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Anupam S/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aleem v. State of U.P. through Principal Secy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aleem v. State of U.P. through Principal Secy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rajlakshmi Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Neha @ Neha Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.S Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Jagdev Singh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mahesh Kumar Shukla Vs the Director Local Bodies State of U.P.

Chaandradaiya Prakash Misra Vs State of U.P. and Others