Disposed¶13

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025WRIA/17414/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seasonal Collection Peon; absorption claim; representation to District Magistrate Jaunpur; decision within three months; papers transmission to competent authority; writ petition disposed without examining merits; liberty to file comprehensive representation; Allahabad High Court; Vikas Budhwar, J.; November 19, 2025; Writ-A 17414 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent (District Magistrate, Jaunpur); the claim to be decided strictly in accordance with law within three months, with transmission of papers to other authorities if the matter falls within their competence. ¶13

Ranjeet Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who has been working as a Seasonal Collection Peon since 2016, should be considered for absorption by the respondents.

¶9

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent (District Magistrate, Jaunpur).

¶13

Ratio / Principle

On receipt of the representation, the second respondent shall decide the petitioner's claim strictly in accordance with law within three months from presentation of the certified copy of the order; if in its opinion the matter is to be decided by some other authorities, the papers shall be transmitted to them.

¶13

Key takeaways

Since the writ petition was decided without seeking any response from the respondents, the order is not to be construed as an expression that the Court has gone into the merits of the case.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.), WRIT - A No. 17414 of 2025, decided November 19, 2025 — Petitioner, claiming to have worked as a Seasonal Collection Peon since 2016 without consideration for absorption, sought a direction for consideration of his claim. With the consent of counsel and on the Standing Counsel's submission that the claim required adjudication at the first instance by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, the writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to move a comprehensive representation before the District Magistrate, who is to decide it strictly in accordance with law within three months, transmitting papers onward if the matter belongs to another authority. The Court clarified that, having disposed of the petition without calling for a response, it had not gone into the merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17414 of 2025

¶3

Ranjeet Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others		.....Resp	ondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mohd. Yadav	Aslam Khan, Ravi	Shankar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 34

¶7

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

¶9

The case of the writ petitioner is that he has been working as a Seasonal Collection Peon since 2016 till date but he has not been considered for absorption.

¶10

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the writ petitioner needs adjudication at the first instance by the second respondent, District Magistrate, Jaunpur.

¶12

To such a submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the selfattested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, who shall on the receipt of the same, proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. In case the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter is to be decided by some other authorities then the papers shall be transmitted to the same.

¶14

WRIA No. 17414 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.

¶17

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off .

¶18

November 19, 2025 A. Prajapati

¶19

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Up 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Kushwaha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijaypal Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rampravesh Gond vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Vishwakarma vs Union of India and 2 Others

Rajendra Prakash Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another