Allowed¶19

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

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026WRIA/3656/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Writ-A No. 3656 of 2026; Rajeev Singh, J.; May 6, 2026; Veeru Singh v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (M.V.V.N.L.); recovery order; H.T. Fuse; L.T. Fuse sets; transformer damage; non-installation; rate contract agreement dated 20.06.2025; M/S Hena Anand; Annexure No. 4; Managing Director M.V.V.N.L.; fresh order within three weeks; impugned order set aside; petition allowed; competent authority; electrical equipment supply; duty discharge by employee.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; Managing Director, M.V.V.N.L. directed to pass a fresh order within a period of three weeks. ¶19

Veeru Singh vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3656 of 2026

Veeru Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Chairman Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeranjan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Manish Jauhari, Ran Vijay Singh

¶9

Court No. - 17

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶11

1. Heard Sri Neeranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in a wholly mechanical manner without considering the entire facts of the case. He further submits that, in the impugned order, it has been alleged that H.T. Fuse and L.T. Fuse sets were not installed in the transformer and, consequently, the transformers were damaged, resulting in recovery orders being passed against the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No. 4 and submits that the aforesaid equipment was not available with the M.V.V.N.L. on the date when the transformer was damaged. It is further submitted that the rate contract agreement between the Nigam and M/S Hena Anand was executed on 20.06.2025 for supply of the aforesaid devices. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties in installing the H.T. Fuse and L.T. Fuse sets at the transformers. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the indulgence of this Court.

¶14

3. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the competent authority.

¶15

4. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the contents of the petition as well as other relevant documents, including the impugned order, it is evident that the allegation against the petitioner is that H.T. Fuse and L.T. Fuse sets were not installed and, therefore, the transformers suffered

¶16

WRIA No. 3656 of 2026

¶17

¶18

damage. However, the rate contract agreement annexed as Annexure No. 4 clearly reveals that the agreement between the Nigam and M/S Hena Anand was executed on 20.06.2025 for supply of the devices. Thus, when the aforesaid devices were not available with the Nigam itself, it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to install the same in the transformers.

¶19

5. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed . The impugned order is hereby set aside with a direction to the Managing Director, M.V.V.N.L. to pass a fresh order within a period of three weeks from today.

¶20

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶21

May 6, 2026 GauraV/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeru 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dilshad @ Mohd Dilshad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohamad Rafique Ganisab Tamboli vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ram Ashish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Saroj Yadav, and 36 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Women and Child Development New Delhi and 20 Others

Gulshaad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others