Writ petition seeking regularization of petitioner's service and minimum pay dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 6933 of 2005
Tarkeshwar Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
| U.P.Statee Bridge Corp | .....Respo |
|---|---|
| Counsel for Petitioner(s) | : D.K.Tripathi |
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : Sudeep Kumar |
.....Respondent(s)
Court No. - 25
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Truck Driver, on which he has been working since 05.02.1986.
2. An order dated 26.10.2005 was passed directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regulation and to pay him minimum of the pay scale admissible to a regularly appointed candidate working on the post of Truck Driver.
3. The matter pertains to the year 2005 and no interest has been shown by the counsel for the petitioner to appear or to apprise the Court of the subsequent developments in the present case.
4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation, in which it has been disputed that the petitioner is working as a Truck Driver as stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. It has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that, in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 26.10.2005, the petitioner was directed to submit proof/documents of his engagement as a Truck Driver in the department, but he failed to submit any such document.
5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the averments made in the counter affidavit have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner is continuously discharging his duties on the post of Truck Driver in the Corporation; however, the
WRIA No. 6933 of 2005
2
documents regarding his engagement as Driver are not with the petitioner so as to establish that he is a Truck Driver engaged in the Corporation.
6. Case called out in the revised list. None appears on behalf of either of the parties to press the instant petition.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.)
October 30, 2025 Shubhankar
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Tarkeshwar Singh
U.P. State Bridge Corp
Amitabh Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
