Disposed¶10

Dr. Prabhakar Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025WRIA/464/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No.464 of 2025 (order dated 20.01.2025); Abdul Moin, J. Keywords: Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK); retirement age 60 vs 62 years; Professor; teaching and non-teaching staff; agricultural education; Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey and 3 Others vs. State of U.P., Writ A No.7847 of 2022; SLP dismissed 02.02.2024; ICAR SLPs withdrawn; Civil Misc. Review Application (Defective) No.36 of 2024; review dismissed 07.11.2024; fresh SLP by respondent No.6; interim listing/adjournment; stay of retirement order sought; State of U.P., Addl. Chief Secretary Agricultural Education and Research.

What the court decided

Dr. Prabhakar Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 464 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Prabhakar Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agricultural Edu. And Research Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayush Chaudhary,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava,Ran Vijay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 and Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 05.12.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been informed that on completing the age of 60 years on 28.02.2025, he would stand retired.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Professor in the Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK). The issue pertaining to the age of retirement of the teaching and non-teaching staff working in the KVK has been considered threadbare in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No.7847 of 2022 in Re: Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and

¶9

4 Others , a copy of which is annexure 23 to the petition.

¶10

It is contended that the SLP filed against the said judgment has been dismissed on 02.02.2024. The copy of the said order is filed as annexure 24 to the petition.

¶11

The contention is that once this Court has been seized of a

¶12

similar controversy and the Division Bench of this Court has specifically held that the teaching and non-teaching staff are to continue till the age of 62 years, consequently, the order of retirement of the petitioner merits to be stayed and the petitioner be permitted to continue till the age of 62 years.

¶13

It is further contended that against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (supra) , the SLPs that have been filed by the ICAR have been withdrawn on the ground that the review application is pending before this Court in the aforesaid judgment in which notices were served vide order dated 23.09.2024 and this Court in Civil Misc. Review Application (Defective) No.36 of 2024 has issued notice on the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 16.07.2024.

¶14

It is also contended that the aforesaid review application has been dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2024, a copy of which is annexure 25 to the petition.

¶15

The contention is that once the Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (supra) has attained finality, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have not extended the benefit of continuing till the age of 62 years to the petitioner.

¶16

Responding to that, Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, on the basis of instructions, states that after dismissal of the review application, the respondent No.6 has filed an SLP which is expected to come up this week.

¶17

Considering that the SLP which has been filed by the respondent No.6 is expected to come up this week, as stated by

¶18

Shri Srivastava, as such, list this case in the next week as fresh.

¶19

By the next date, Shri Srivastava would indicate as to the orders that may have been passed in the SLP which has been filed by the respondent No.6.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 S. Shivhare

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Prabhakar Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Prabhakar Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Surat and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ibrar Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Suresh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Akash Nigam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Asha Tewari vs Ashish Kumar Singh, Distt. Basic Education Officer, Bahraich

C/M Malti Devi Girls Junior High School Raghunathpur Thru. Its Manager Sri Umesh Kumar and Another vs Dr. M.K. Shanmuga Sundaram Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko.