Dismissed¶17

Ram Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIA/16381/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of service; rejection of regularization application; Social Forestry Division, Forest Department, District Basti; death of sole petitioner during pendency; substitution application rejected; delay condonation application; substituted applicants cannot claim regularization; writ petition dismissed; certiorari; mandamus; WRIT - A No. 16381 of 2014; Anish Kumar Gupta, J.; State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

The substitution application is rejected because, the sole petitioner having died on 19.11.2014, even if the substitution application were allowed the substituted applicants cannot claim regularization. ¶16

Ram Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 16381 of 2014

¶3

Ram Lal

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

		Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Ganesh Datt Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.
Court No.- 34

¶6

Sl. No. 33

¶7

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶8

Substitution Application No. 135115 of 2017 alongwith Delay Condonation Application No. 135113 of 2017

¶9

Vide order dated 22.10.2019 the respondents were directed to file the reply to the substitution application as well as to the delay condonation application. No such reply has ever been filed by the State respondents.

¶10

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following prayer:

¶11

"1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.10.2013 rejecting the application of the petitioner for the regularization, passed by Divisonal Director Social Forestry Division, Fore Department District Basti (Annexure No. 1) to the writ petition.

¶12

2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents by directing them to consider the petitioner for regularization of his service at least from the date of regularization of service of junior i.e. they who were initially engaged subsequent to him; followed by consequential benefits of the same"

¶13

The sole petitioner who claimed regularization has reportedly died on 19.11.2014. In such view of the matter, even if the substitution application is allowed the substituted applicants cannot claim

¶14

WRIA No. 16381 of 2014

¶15

¶16

regularization. In view thereof this Court do not find any good reason to allow the instant substitution application. Accordingly, the substitution application is rejected.

¶17

Consequently, the writ petition is also dismissed.

¶18

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶19

May 5, 2026

¶20

o.k.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Dulari Vs D.D.C. and Others

Committee of Management, A.S. Degree College Association and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shashima Maurya Vs State of U.P.and Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Yashodhara Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kundan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others