Pradeep Kumar Balmeeki vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 170 of 2026

¶3

Pradeep Kumar Balmeeki

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Krishna Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.,	Madhav Shukla Sriniwas Bajpai

¶6

Court No. - 1

¶7

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶8

1. Heard.

¶9

This is an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 challenging judgment and order dated 23.03.2026 in Writ-A No.3001 of 2026.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we find that some selection was held in 2005 for engagement of Sweeper on contractual basis wherein it is said that appellant-petitioner was selected and an appointment letter was sought to be served upon him but according to opposite parties, he declined to accept it. In the meantime, since 2012, the appellant-petitioner has worked as Sweeper through service provider and is still continuing to work. In 2025, somehow an inquiry was instituted in the matter regarding appointment of the appellant-petitioner in the year 2005. We asked learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent as to how this inquiry came to be instituted and at whose behest but none of them could give a reply much less a satisfactory one. We fail to understand as to why the petitioner kept silent for twenty years and he does not even know as to how this inquiry in 2025 was initiated wherein it was found as claimed that the appointment letter was never served upon the appellant-petitioner or was

¶11

SPLA No. 170 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

never attempted to be served upon him. Based thereon, a fresh appointment letter dated 21.07.2025 was issued by the then Executive Officer who allowed the appellant-petitioner to join. The then Executive Officer allowed the petitioner to join in July, 2025 based on the appointment letter allegedly issued to him on 17.06.2006. As the salary was not being paid to the appellant-petitioner, therefore, he filed Writ-A No.9494 of 2025 which was disposed of on 25.08.2025 with a direction to consider the representation of the appellant-petitioner. The said representation was decided on 21.02.2026. After scrutiny of records and verification of facts wherein it was found that the appointment letter dated 17.06.2006 was issued to the petitioner who was required to submit his documents and join in pursuance thereon within one week and also to get an agreement executed for the contractual engagement. The order clearly mentioned that if needful is not done within the said period then it will be presumed that the candidate is not willing to accept the offer. An attempt was made to get the appointment order served upon the petitioner but the appellant-petitioner refused. It was also found that the earlier Executive Officer issued a fresh appointment letter in 2025 to the appellantpetitioner after nineteen years which was not permissible. The said order further states that the writ petition aforesaid was filed by the appellantpetitioner after eighteen years of the alleged cause of action. No attempt was made from 2006 till 2025 by the appellant-petitioner to raise any grievance.

¶14

Learned writ court considered the matter and rejected the writ petition of the petitioner.

¶15

We have gone through the judgment and we do not find any error therein. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the appellant - petitioner did not raise his grievance either before the authority or before the court since 2006. In fact, it is also not clear as to how the matter was resurrected by the earlier Executive Officer in 2025. No explanation in this regard could be offered by learned counsel for the appellant. Only on account of delay, this was not a matter to be reconsidered in 2025.

¶16

Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed .

¶17

SPLA No. 170 of 2026

¶18

3

¶19

This shall have no bearing on the working and continuance of the appellant-petitioner in the Nagar Panchyat concerned through the service provider and he shall not be disengaged from service merely on account of initiation of these proceedings.

¶20

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶21

April 2, 2026

¶22

Shanu/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pradeep Kumar Balmeeki v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Balmeeki v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko. and 2 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

Similar cases

Neeraj Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate and 15 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sinchai Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others vs Chiroji Lal and 7 Others

Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Khadi and Village Industries Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Shailendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others vs Ramesh Chandra Shukla

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 3 Others vs Sitaram Pal