Disposed¶11

Sanjay Kumar Dubey and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2025WRIA/3555/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of services; representation to be decided; termination dated 23.07.2012 alleged de-hors Rules; writ disposed without merits due to disputed facts; direction to consider representation expeditiously and communicate legal impediment; reliance on Anand Kumar Kasera v. State of U.P., 2023:AHC:85426, upheld in SLP(C) 29445/2024 (20.09.2024); Allahabad High Court; WRIT - A 3555 of 2025; 2025:AHC:41500.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the concerned respondent to decide the petitioner's representation (already filed, or a fresh one to be filed within 2 weeks annexing all relevant documents of facts as well as law on the issue) expeditiously, and to communicate any legal impediment to the petitioner; no adjudication on merits. ¶11

Sanjay Kumar Dubey and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has a case for consideration for regularization of his services, to be examined through his pending or fresh representation, notwithstanding the respondents' stand that his appointment was de-hors the Rules and he was terminated on 23.07.2012.

¶7

Court's answer

The writ petition was disposed of, without entering into the merits because of disputed facts, with an observation that the concerned respondent shall decide the representation already filed (or a fresh representation to be filed within 2 weeks annexing all relevant documents of facts and law on the issue) expeditiously, and in case of legal impediment the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly declined to enter into the merits of the case since there were disputed questions of fact.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.), WRIT - A No. 3555 of 2025, Sanjay Kumar Dubey And 6 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:41500; Order Date: 21.3.2025). The petitioner sought consideration of his case for regularization. Respondents' counsel stated on instructions that the appointment was de-hors the Rules and the petitioner was terminated on 23.07.2012, but offered that any representation would be considered and legal impediments communicated. Petitioner's counsel relied on Anand Kumar Kasera and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC:85426, upheld by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29445/2024 decided on 20.09.2024. Without entering into the merits due to disputed facts, the Court disposed of the writ petition observing that the concerned respondent shall decide the representation already filed (or a fresh one within 2 weeks with relevant documents of facts and law) expeditiously and communicate any legal impediment to the petitioner.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41500

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3555 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhan Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harshit Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dhan Pal, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Munna Pandey, learned counsel for respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner refers certain documents annexed along with this writ petition as well as averments that petitioner has a case for consideration for regularization.

¶8

Learned counsel for respondents has heavily opposed above submissions and submits that he has instructions that appointment of petitioner was de-hors of Rules and he was terminated on 23.07.2012, however, he submits that representation, if any, of petitioner will be considered and legal impediment, if any, will be communicated to him.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner, at this stage, submits that while deciding representation of petitioner, concerned respondents may take note of judgment of this Court in Anand Kumar Kasera and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC:85426 which has been upheld by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29445/2024 decided on 20.09.2024.

¶10

Considering prayer of learned counsel for petitioner and at this stage, without entering into merit of case since there are disputed facts, therefore, this writ petition

¶11

is disposed of with an observation that concerned respondent will decide the representation which has already been filed or if a fresh representation is filed within 2 weeks annexing all relevant documents of facts as well as law on issue, thereafter, concerned respondent will decide the said representation expeditiously and in case of legal impediment, same shall be communicated to petitioner.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Sinha_N.

¶13

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Kumar Dubey and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Dubey and 6 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Palakdhari @ Palakdhari Prajapati vs State of Up and 6 Others

Sakshi Singh vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuradha vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tilak Ram Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Usha Mishra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others