Disposed

Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2025WRIA/207/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of representation to be attached to office post while engaged as conductor on contract. Held that no rule permitted such attachment. Petition's contract had expired. Writ petition disposed of with liberty granted to Corporation to engage petitioner in suitable employment in future.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Corporation to engage the petitioner in any other suitable employment in future upon his representation.

Mahendra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2267

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 207 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Mahendra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandresh Yadav,Niharika Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 19.09.2023 whereby petitioner's representation for being attached with the Barabanki Depot has been rejected.

¶8

As per submissions of learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, it transpires that petitioner had earlier been engaged by the Corporation on contract basis for a period of 11 months, which was renewed from time to time. It also appears that petitioner was engaged on the post of Conductor in the buses plied by the Corporation but subsequently on account of certain circumstances, made an application for being attached to the office instead of in the field.

¶9

The impugned order has been passed primarily on the ground that there is no provision whereunder a person engaged on a contract basis for a particular employment can be adjusted or attached on some other post.

¶10

It also appears from the record that in the meantime, subsequent to passing of the impugned order, petitioner's contract with the opposite parties has expired without any further renewal and, therefore, admittedly he is not in the employment of the Corporation at all.

¶11

There also does not appear to be any provision under the rules or regulations of the Corporation for granting relief as has been sought by the petitioner.

¶12

In view thereof, there does not appear to be any occasion to interfere with the order impugned.

¶13

However, in view of the fact that petitioner has rendered service with the Corporation for the past 20 years, liberty is granted to the Corporation to engage petitioner in any other suitable employment, in case so desired, upon a representation being made by the petitioner.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 13.1.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Vijay Ayurvedic Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre Thru. Its Dirr. Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs the Union of India Thru. Its Secy., Ministry of Ayush, New Delhi and Others

Dr. K.L. Patel College of Professional Studies Thru. Authorized Signatory Amrendra Bhusan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Technical Education, Lko. and Others

Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Thru. General Manager Sri. Nanjappa Gowder Varadharajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education, Lucknow and Others

Mohini Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Mahendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Kumar II Vs U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Thru. Director and Another