Dismissed¶14

Jitendra Kumar Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. through Its Prin. Secy. Sahkarita ANUBHAG-1

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2025WRIA/2882/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT - A No. - 2882 of 2003; Jitendra Kumar Singh and 2 others v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Sahkarita Anubhag-1; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 28; Brij Raj Singh, J.; decided 8.4.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:19815; regularisation of Kurk Amins; U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974; mandamus; pay scale salary; Revenue Department; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty to apply for recall; counsel Ghaus Beg / Haroon Rashid; C.S.C. for State.

What did the court decide?

By efflux of time the petitioners appear to have lost interest in pursuing the writ petition, in which no interim order had been passed. ¶13

Jitendra Kumar Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. through Its Prin. Secy. Sahkarita ANUBHAG-1 — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19815

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2882 of 2003

¶4

Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Singh And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Prin. Secy. Sahkarita Anubhag-1 Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghaus Beg Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Haroon Rashid, holding brief of Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

¶8

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioners on the posts of Kurk Amins from the date of their initial appointment in accordance to the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974.

¶9

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay salary in the pay scale as admissible to Kurk Amins working in the Revenue Department, to the Petitioners."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition has been filed for regularization of the services of the petitioners. It is admitted that no interim order was passed and the writ petition was filed way back in the year 2003.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioners have not approached him, therefore, he does not have any instructions in the matter.

¶12

It appears that by efflux of time the petitioners have lost their

¶13

interest in pursuing this writ petition and there is also no interim order in this writ petition.

¶14

The writ petition is dismissed as has become infructuous.

¶15

However, it is open for the petitioners to move appropriate application for recall of this order, in case the petition survives and petitioners come back to their counsel with instructions.

¶16

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Anupam S/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Kumar Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. through Its Prin. Secy. Sahkarita ANUBHAG-1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. through Its Prin. Secy. Sahkarita ANUBHAG-1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Shukla Vs the Director Local Bodies State of U.P.

Chaandradaiya Prakash Misra Vs State of U.P. and Others

Aleem Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy.

Mohammad Yaseen and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt.Kalpana Pandey Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai Vs State of U.P.through Secy.