Bhagauti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1435 of 2026

Bhagauti

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tushar Bhushan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 7

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Tushar Bhushan, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties.

¶10

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to State respondents to set aside/quash the oral order of termination dated 01.10.2024, terminating the services of the petitioner on Class IV post.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed in July, 2006 as a Daily Wager on Group D Class IV post, in Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, North Kheri, Buffer Zone, Ludhauri Range, Lakhimpur Kheri and thereafter from July, 2006 till 30.09.2024, the petitioner discharged his duties on the post of Watcher. It has further been submitted that when the petitioner reported for his duty on 01.10.2024 in Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, North Kheri, Ludhauri Range, Lakhimpur Kheri, he was not allowed and permitted to discharge his duties and was not allowed to mark his attendance in the attendance register.

¶12

He further submits that no work is being taken from the petitioner since 01.10.2024 till date, and the petitioner is not being allowed to discharge his duties on Class IV post, even though the petitioner is always willing and ready to discharge his duties on his post but no work is being taken from the petitioner on Class IV.

¶13

In this regard, it has been submitted that petitioner has given a

¶14

WRIA No. 1435 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

representation dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure No. 2) which is pending consideration and has not been decided so far.

¶17

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel does not object if a direction is issued to respondents for expeditious disposal of the representation preferred by the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks by speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, from the date a copy of this order is produced before him and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶20

February 10, 2026 lakshman

¶21

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶22

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

Bhagauti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagauti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Ravendra Pal @ Ravendra Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Patel and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohammod Afsar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Nagendra Singh, Constable PNO.-080460116 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Affairs U.P. Shasan, Lko. and 4 Others

Gajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Secy., Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and Another

Fateh Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others