Mahendra Singh Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39254

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6947 of 2025

Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayankar Singh,Neeraj Kumar Rai,Shachindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Neerav Chitravanshi

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

¶7

2. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 27.06.2025, which, for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereunder :-

¶8

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that though he is entitled for promotion on the post of Chief Engineer and although Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was convened long back in July, 2024, its result has not seen light of the day and the proceedings have been kept in sealed cover. The petitioner has also moved application before the competent authority praying for promotion.

¶10

It is further urged that the petitioner shall attain the age of superannuation in August, 2025 and, therefore, the matter is urgent.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel shall come up with complete instructions in the matter as to whether the petitioner is or is not entitled to be promoted on the post of Chief Engineer.

¶12

In case any decision has already been taken, the same shall be produced before the next date fixed with its copy being ready to be served on learned counsel for the petitioner in open Court.

¶13

Put up in the list of fresh cases before appropriate Bench on 10.07.2025. "

¶14

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting for consideration of promotion to the post of Chief Engineer was held on 06.08.2024. The petitioner's recommendation has been kept in a sealed cover, despite the fact that there were no proceedings pending against him at the time. Hence, the instant petition has been filed seeking the opening of the sealed cover and granting the petitioner promotion to the post of Chief Engineer with all consequential benefits.

¶15

4. It is further contended that the petitioner is due to retire on 31.08.2025.

¶16

5. Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents, on the basis of instructions dated 09.07.2025 sent by the Deputy Secretary of the Corporation, states that at the time of the DPC, which was held on 06.08.2024, a decision had only been taken to refer the matter of the petitioner for inquiry to the Vigilance Department, which consequently resulted in the recommendation of the petitioner by the DPC, due to such apprehension, being kept in a sealed cover.

¶17

6. It is contended subsequent thereto, a charge sheet dated 28.03.2025 has been issued to the petitioner and

¶18

further the petitioner has been found guilty in a meeting, which has been held on 21.01.2025.

¶19

7. Sri Neerav Chitravanshi also states that the sealed cover procedure, as directed by the State Government vide Government Order dated 28.05.1997, has been adopted in the Corporation on 08.10.1997.

¶20

8. Perusal of the aforesaid Government Order, as adopted by the Corporation, would indicate that clause 2 of the said Government Order contains the eventualities upon which a person can be kept in sealed cover, i.e., where he is under suspension, or departmental proceedings are either pending or a charge sheet has been issued, or in a criminal case, the proceedings are pending or a charge sheet has been filed.

¶21

9. Admittedly, none of the three eventualities were attracted in the case of the petitioner at the time the DPC meeting on 06.08.2024

¶22

10. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to open the sealed cover of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 28.05.1997, as adopted by the Corporation on 08.10.1997.

¶23

11. Considering that the petitioner is due to retire on 31.08.2025, the decision shall be taken strictly within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy

¶24

of this order.

¶25

12. It is further provided that in case the petitioner is found entitled to promotion to the post of Chief Engineer after opening the sealed cover, consequential benefits shall follow.

¶26

[Abdul Moin, J.]

¶27

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 cks/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahendra Singh v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Pher Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Vidhan Sabha Marg Lko. and 3 Others

Chhote Lal Kantak and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 5 Others

Puneet Kumar Gautam Vs King George Medical University U.P. Lko. Thru. Vice Chancellor and 3 Others

Kamal Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Gobind Lal Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications, Ministry of Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others