Dismissed

Purushottam Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Family Welfare Deptt. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2025WRIA/2750/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging arbitrary delegation of work and seeking quo warranto against officials performing CMO tasks, the Allahabad High Court held that work distribution is a departmental matter and the petitioner had no constitutional right if tasks are assigned by superiors.

What did the court decide?

The petition standing dismissed without exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

Purushottam Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14511

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2750 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Purushottam Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Family Welfare Deptt. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Narain Srivastava,Prashant Chaurasia

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Anurag Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought following prayer:-

¶9

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 contained in Annexure No. 1.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 to initiate proper and independent inquiry regarding the payment of medical reimbursement bills between 01.01.2024 till date and grant of 2006 licenses to Private Nursing Homes at Lucknow in the aforementioned period and appropriate action against the corrupt officials who are involved in financial irregularities.

¶11

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto asking the respondent no. 5 and 7 as to under what authority they are performing the work of examination of medical reimbursement claims in CMO office Lucknow despite being posted as Stenographer (respondent no. 5) and Deputy CMO (respondent no. 7) respectively while work is assignable to CMO and the Senior Assistant."

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily delegated certain works to private opposite parties while he claims that he is working on the post of Senior Assistant and the said work

¶13

should be directed to be discharged by the petitioner only. It is noticed that matters pertaining to work distribution in any office is in the domain and competence of the Controlling Authority and subject to various government orders issued from time to time. The said issue should be resolved by the departmental authority themselves and in case any government servant feels aggrieved, he has a right to approach before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal with regard to the same.

¶14

This Court does not find any right of the petitioner under Part III of the Constitution has been violated in case a particular task has not been assigned to him. The government servant is entitled to perform the task which is granted to him by his superiors, which certainly should be in accordance with various rules, bye-laws etc.

¶15

Accordingly, this Court does not find a fit case to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

Subject to aforesaid direction, this petition stands dismissed.

¶17

Subject to the aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed.

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Virendra

¶20

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

Purushottam Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Family Welfare Deptt. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Family Welfare Deptt. and 6 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

Poonam Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and 2 Others

Dharmveer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest. Deptt. Lko and Another

Kunwar Devendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Civil Supply Deptt. Govt. Lko and Another

Lalji Maurya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Forest) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Tej Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others