Disposed¶20

Santosh Kumar Kurmi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. and 2 Others

Service Law – Deputation – Repatriation

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025WRIA/14038/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deputation repatriation UPEIDA Uttar Pradesh Expressway Industrial Development Authority; Public Works Department Government of U.P.; more than seven years on deputation; fresh representation; State of Punjab v. Inder Singh; Writ - A No. 14038 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; December 4, 2025; petition finally disposed of with direction to decide representation within six weeks; no order on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation before the Chief Executive Officer, UPEIDA, Lucknow, who is directed to consider and decide it within six weeks of production of a certified copy of the order; petitioner to annex the cited judgment and a copy of this order. ¶20

Santosh Kumar Kurmi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 14038 of 2025

Santosh Kumar Kurmi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arjun Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sharad Tewari

¶9

Court No. - 7

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 3 and Mr. Ambrish Rai learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶12

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite party no. 2 to repatriate petitioner with immediate effect.

¶13

It has been submitted that petitioners who were initially appointed in the Public Works Department of the State Government were sent on deputation to the Uttar Pradesh Expressway Industrial Development Authority and have now spent more than seven years on such deputation but the opposite parties are not repatriating them despite the fact that petitioner is entitled to such repatriation.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon in the case of State of Punjab and others versus Inder Singh and others to buttress the fact that petitioner is required to be repatriated.

¶15

For the said grievance petitioner has already submitted a representation but seek liberty to file a fresh representation before the authority concerned.

¶16

Considering the innocuous prayer, without entering into merits, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party no. 2 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Uttar Pradesh Expressway Industrial

¶17

WRIA No. 14038 of 2025

¶18

¶19

Development Authority (UPEIDA), Lucknow (U.P.) who shall consider and decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority along with fresh representation in the light of aforesaid judgment in case the same is applicable upon petitioner. Petitioner shall annex copy of the aforesaid judgment along with the copy of this order.

¶20

With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of.

¶21

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶22

December 4, 2025

¶23

prabhat

¶24

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

Santosh Kumar Kurmi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Kurmi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shashi Bhushan Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. and 2 Others

Chiroji Lal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sinchai Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Bilas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. and 2 Others

Shiv Ram Singh Yadav (PNO-842356206) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Utpal Kumar De Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko and Another