Disposed

Rukmani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025WRIA/4672/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a former Prantiya Rakshak Dal volunteer, disengaged in 2019, whose representation for re-engagement was rejected because her name was not on the respondents' portal. The court held her case covered by its earlier order in Kapil Dev Tiwari and disposed of the petition accordingly without interfering with the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of order dated 07.10.2021 in Kapil Dev Tiwari; respondents to give duty and pay honorarium if work available, without interfering with the impugned order.

Rukmani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 4672 of 2024

Rukmani

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 8

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶11

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 21.11.2023 whereby petitioner's representation for being engaged as a volunteer in the Prantiya Rakshak Dal has been rejected.

¶12

It has been submitted that petitioner was initially engaged as a volunteer with the PRD in the year 2010 after providing training to petitioner but was subsequently disengaged in the year 2019. He has adverted to the impugned order to submit that petitioner's representation has been rejected only on the ground that his name has not been uploaded with data on the portal available with the opposite parties.

¶13

Learned counsel submits that it is in fact not being denied by opposite parties that petitioner was initially engaged in the year 2010 as a volunteer with the PRD and there is no complaint against her and there was no occasion for the opposite parties to disengage her from service.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of similarly situated persons, this Court has passed the order dated 7.10.2021 in Service Single No.12261 of 2021, Kapil Dev Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others . Against the said judgement and order dated 7.10.2021, the State filed Special Appeal No.131 of 2022, which was dismissed vide

¶15

WRIA No. 4672 of 2024

¶16

¶17

order dated 5.4.2022.

¶18

It is further submitted that the similar matter has been decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions leading one was Writ A No. 4170 of 2022.

¶19

Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submissions that even as per admission of the petitioner, he was disengaged from service in the year 2019 and now there is no occasion for petitioner to reengage in service. It is submitted that the aspect of petitioner's conduct would require to be examined by authority concerned.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the operative part of the judgement and order dated 7.10.2021 passed by this Court in Service Single No.12261 of 2021 (supra) is reproduced as under:-

¶21

"Considering the fact that the petitioner has rendered 7 years of long services with Prantiya Rakshak Dal and his work and conduct was not found unsatisfactory at any point of time and no complain whatsoever, was received against him, at this stage, dispensing with his service, would be inequitable. Even, if the petitioner has not been able to produce his training certificate, since he has rendered 9 years long services with the department, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to give the duty to the petitioner if there is work and pay him honorarium as is being paid to the other members of Prantiya Rakshak Dal. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is finally disposed of."

¶22

Upon consideration of the aforesaid aspects, it appears that petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment and orders indicated hereinabove.

¶23

In view thereof, present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of order dated 07.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 12261(S/S) of 2021 without interfering with the order impugned.

¶24

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶25

September 3, 2025 Subodh/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rukmani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhanu Prakash Shukla and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment Lko. and 4 Others

Anand Kumar Divedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Vs Stat of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Tech. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmraj Yadav (Constable Driver , Pno - 040600390) and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. It Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 10 Others