Disposed¶12

Raju and 92 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2025WRIA/1503/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 5), WRIT - A No. - 1503 of 2025, decided 17.2.2025 by Ajay Bhanot, J. (2025:AHC:22173). Raju and 92 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others. Claim for regularization as pump operators and GEM portal service registration; representation undecided; respondent no.1 directed to decide representation as per law within four months on certified copy plus fresh representation; writ petition disposed of without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.1 to decide the petitioners' representation regarding regularization of service as per law within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order along with a fresh copy of the representation; petitioners also permitted to correct the array of parties within two days. ¶12

Raju and 92 Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization on the post of pump operators and registration of their service on the GEM portal, and whether the competent authority must decide their pending representation as per law within a reasonable time.

¶9

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, respondent no.1 is directed to decide the petitioners' representation regarding regularization of service as per law within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order along with a fresh copy of the representation; the petitioners are to move a representation before respondent no.1 regarding their claims.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - A No. - 1503 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:22173), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. - 5; Ajay Bhanot, J.; order dated 17.2.2025. Petitioners (Raju and 92 others) claimed regularization on the post of pump operators and registration of their service on the GEM portal; their representation remained undecided. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 - 4 conceded that the claim requires factual determination by the competent authority in the first instance and must be decided within a reasonable time frame. Without going into the merits, the court directed respondent no.1 to decide the representation regarding regularization of service as per law within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order along with a fresh copy of the representation, with liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation and to correct the array of parties within two days. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

Raju and 92 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju and 92 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh 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