Disposed¶12

Rajeev Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2025WRIA/6170/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of services; Class IV contractual employees; Nagar Panchayat Nai Bazar Bhadohi; direction to decide pending representation within three months; no adjudication on merits; WRIT - A No. 6170 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Ajay Bhanot, J.; decided 7.5.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:73280; petitioners Rajeev Kumar Yadav and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authority to decide the petitioners' representation regarding regularization of services as per law within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order along with a fresh copy of the representation; writ petition finally disposed of without examining merits. ¶12

Rajeev Kumar Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73280

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6170 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Subhranshu Shekhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The petitioners are working as Class IV contractual employees under the respondent no. 4-Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Nai Bazar, Bhadohi. The petitioners claim that they are entitled for regularization of their services. A representation in this regard has been made but to no avail.

¶8

The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the representation of the petitioners may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶9

Shri Subhranshu Shekhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits the matter requires factual determination as per applicable law by the competent authority in the first instance and claims of the petitioners need to be ascertained. However, he fairly contends that the claim of the petitioners for regularization

¶10

is liable to be decided within a reasonable time frame.

¶11

In wake of the preceding discussion and without going into the merits of the case, the respondent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioners regarding regularization of his services as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation.

¶12

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the controversy. The same shall be decided by the competent authority by independent application of mind. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Vandit

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Yadav and 2 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Charanpal Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sindhu Devi vs the Principal Secretary and Rahat Ayukt Government of Up and 3 Others

Ranjeet Saini vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umesh Singh vs Food Corporation of India and 5 Others

Kamlesh Yadav vs Food Corporation of India Divisional Office and 5 Others

Smt Keshar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others