Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order: petitioner directed to appear before the Court on 19.05.2026 to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him and why the writ petition should not be dismissed with exemplary cost of not less than Rs.2,00,000/-; matter listed on 19.05.2026. Petition not finally decided at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the retirement notice dated 06.11.2025 is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost on the ground that the petitioner concealed material facts (wrong recital that services were regularized in 1999, whereas the regularization order dated 29.04.2004 records his date of birth as 16.02.1966), and whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner.

Court's answer

A wrong recital was made in the writ petition that the petitioner's services were regularized in the year 1999, whereas per the Instructions the services were regularized vide order dated 29.04.2004 in which the petitioner's date of birth is mentioned as 16.02.1966.

Ratio / Principle

It could not be presumed that the petitioner did not have a copy of the regularization order passed in the year 2004, the benefit of which he has taken for the last 21 years.

Key takeaways

The Court is of the opinion that the petitioner filed the present petition by concealing material facts, for which the writ petition is liable to be dismissed imposing exemplary cost.ratio¶14
Being more than satisfied that material facts were concealed, the Court directed the petitioner to appear on 19.05.2026 and explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him and why the petition should not be dismissed imposing exemplary cost not less than Rs.2,00,000/-; the matter was listed on 19.05.2026.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 6, Prakash Padia, J.), Writ - A No. 2461 of 2026, Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others, order dated May 12, 2026: Petition challenging notice dated 06.11.2025 issued by respondent No.5/Executive Engineer, Construction Division-1, Public Works Department, Sidharth Nagar, pursuant to which the petitioner was retired on attaining superannuation (60 years) on 28.02.2026. Respondents' Instructions dated 25.04.2026 disclosed that the petitioner's services were regularized vide order dated 29.04.2004 (petitioner at Serial No.10) recording his date of birth as 16.02.1966, contradicting the writ petition's recital that regularization took place in 1999. Holding that the petitioner concealed material facts and could not be presumed to be without a copy of the 2004 regularization order whose benefit he had taken for 21 years, the Court found the writ petition liable to be dismissed imposing exemplary cost, and directed the petitioner to appear on 19.05.2026 to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated and why the petition should not be dismissed with exemplary cost of not less than Rs.2,00,000/-; matter listed on 19.05.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 2461 of 2026

Rajendra Prasad

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to challenging the notice dated 06.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.5/Executive Engineer, Construction Division-1 Public Works Department Sidharth Nagar. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was retired after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years on 28.02.2026.

Learned Standing Counsel placed Instructions dated 25.04.2026 received under the signatures of respondent No.5, the same is taken on record and copy of the aforesaid Instructions has also been provided to the counsel for the petitioner. It is stated in the aforesaid Instructions that the petitioner was initially appointed as Daily Wage Worker on the post of Beldar in the year 1984 and subsequently, he was given employment as daily wage employee in अिनयिमत कायर्प्रितष्ठािपत अिधष्ठान on 13.07.1999. It is further stated in the aforesaid Instructions that subsequetly the services of the petitioner along with other 9 persons were regularized vide order dated 29.04.2004 in which the name of the petitioner stands Serial No.10 in which date of birth is mentioned as 16.02.1966.

From perusal of the same, it is clear that wrong recital has been made in the writ petition that services of the petitioner has been regularized in the year 1999 while in the Instructions, it is stated that the services of the petitioner along with other 9 persons were regularized vide order dated 29.04.2004 in which the name of the petitioner stands Serial No.10 in which date of birth is mentioned as 16.02.1966. It is could not be

WRIA No. 2461 of 2026

2

presumed that the petitioner does not have copy of the regularization order passed in the year 2004 benefit of which has been taken by him from last 21 years ago.

In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner has filed present petition by concealing material facts for which writ petition is liable to be dismissed imposing exemplary cost.

At this stage, a prayer has been made by the petitioner to seek Instructions in the matter.

Since the court is more than satisfied that material facts has been concealed by the petitioner while filing the present petition, petitioner is directed to appear before the Court on 19.05.2026 and explain that why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner and why the petition should not be dismissed imposing exemplary cost which is not less than Rs.2,00,000/-

List this matter on 19.05.2026.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

May 12, 2026

saqlain

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad