Disposed¶25

Jay Prakash Shukla @ Jayprakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2025WRIA/5789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prantiya Rakshak Dal PRD duty honorarium training certificate serial no. 138 budget 137 personnel long service inequitable dispensation parity of pay mandamus certiorari second writ petition representation Director General Provincial Guard Team Development Team Youth Welfare Lucknow Sadhna Kumari (2007) 1 UPLBEC 120 Kapil Dev Tiwari Writ Petition 2399 of 2021 Writ-A 5789 of 2024 Alok Mathur 18.2.2025 2025:AHC-LKO:10588 Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition finally disposed of with directions to the respondents to give the petitioner duty on the post of PRD if there is work and to pay him honorarium as is being paid to the other members of the Prantiya Rakshak Dal; the impugned order was not expressly quashed. ¶25

Jay Prakash Shukla @ Jayprakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who has rendered about ten years of service with the Prantiya Rakshak Dal but could not produce his training certificate, is entitled to be assigned duty and paid honorarium at par with other PRD members. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Since the petitioner has rendered 10 years of long service with the Prantiya Rakshak Dal, his work and conduct was never found unsatisfactory and no complaint was received against him, dispensing with his services at this stage would be inequitable.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Even though the petitioner could not produce his training certificate, having rendered 10 years of long service with the department, the respondents were directed to give him duty if there is work and to pay him honorarium as is being paid to the other members of the Prantiya Rakshak Dal.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.), Writ-A No. 5789 of 2024, decided 18.2.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:10588). Jay Prakash Shukla, a member of the Prantiya Rakshak Dal (PRD), sought certiorari against the order dated 21.06.2024 of opposite party no.5 and mandamus for assignment of duty and payment of honorarium at par with other PRD members. His claim had been rejected because the training budget covered 137 personnel while his name stood at serial no. 138 and he could not produce his training certificate. This was his second writ petition on the same cause of action; the first, Writ Petition No. 2399 (Service Single) of 2021 (Kapil Dev Tiwari v. State of U.P.), had been disposed of on 28.01.2021 with a direction to decide his representation. Holding that, after 10 years of service with unblemished work and conduct and no complaints, dispensing with his services would be inequitable even in the absence of a training certificate, the court directed the respondents to give him duty if work is available and to pay him honorarium equal to that of other PRD members. Petition disposed of. Counsel for the petitioner had relied on Sadhna Kumari (Smt.) v. State of U.P., (2007) 1 UPLBEC 120.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10588

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5789 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Shukla @ Jayprakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Adarsh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs:-

¶8

(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the opposite party no.5, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

¶9

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to provide the duty to the petitioners on the post of PRD (Prantiya Rakshak Dal) and pay them honorarium as is being paid to the other members of Prantiya Rakshak Dal.

¶10

This is the second writ petition being preferred for the same cause of action. The earlier writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2399 (Service Single) of 2021 (Kapil Dev Tiwari Vs. State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home & Ors.) was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2021 in the following manner:-

¶11

"Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for State.

¶12

Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the following primary relief:-

¶13

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the Opp. Parties to make online feeding of the name of the petitioner on the basis of earlier verification and on the basis of departmental list 443 where the name of the petitioner is mentioned at serial No.239 and provide duty to the petitioner so that the petitioner could survive his and his family life."

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that grievance of petitioner would be sufficiently met in case representation of petitioner for the said purposes is considered and decided in a time bound manner.

¶15

Learned standing counsel has no objection to the same.

¶16

In view thereof, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no.2 Director General Provincial Guard Team/Development Team and Youth Welfare Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, raising all his grievance, annexing therewith a copy of this writ petition along with annexures and all the documents in support of his claim within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified

¶17

copy of this order.

¶18

In case such a representation is moved by petitioner, respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.

¶19

It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶20

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of."

¶21

In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner had filed the representation before the Director General Provincial Guard Team/Development Team and Youth Welfare Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The petitioner's prayer for giving him work and paying honorarium has been rejected on the ground that the budget was issued for training of 137 personnel, however, the petitioner's name was found at serial no. 138 and the petitioner could not make available his training certificate and therefore, he cannot be assigned the duty of Prantiya Rakshak Dal.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that petitioner has rendered his services for 11 long years continuously. If the petitioner was not trained, the respondent should not have been given him duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if, the petitioner does not have training certificate rendering long 11 years of service would be enough to treat him as trained personnel. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in Sadhna Kumari (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2007) 1 UPLBEC 120 and submits that if the person has not obtained employment on the basis of any fraud or in a fraudulent manner and, he has rendered long service, though he may not be fully qualified for the said post, the services should not be terminated on the ground that the said person does not possess the requisite qualification.

¶23

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

¶24

Considering the fact that the petitioner has rendered 10 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 10 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 Da.

¶25

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is finally disposed of .

¶26

[ Alok Mathur,J. ]

¶27

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 KR

¶28

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

Jay Prakash Shukla @ Jayprakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash Shukla @ Jayprakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 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

Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rana Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sectt. Adm. Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Harish Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Ishaq Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Prasad Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Jay Prakash Shukla @ Jayprakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others