Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 102705 (ALL)

RAM KRIPAL PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/15038/2025 · 2025-10-08

Vikas Budhwar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15038 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri S.S.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was engaged as a Seasonal Collection Peon on 03.01.2000 in Tehsil Nizamabad and he was working continuously without any break to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors. However, a seniority list came to be published on 30.01.2024 wherein name of the writ petitioner was placed at Sl. No.128 and two juniors namely Lalman Yadav and Awadhesh Singh were assigned seniority at Sl. no. 135 and 130 respectively, however, they came to be disengaged on 04.12.2024, pursuant whereto they approached this Court while filing Writ-A No.10636 of 2024, Lalman Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein certain orders were passed on 20.08.2024 and thereafter on the basis of the stand taken by the respondents, that they were at no point of time disengaged, however, now the writ petitioner alleges that the services have been dispensed with w.e.f. 21.06.2025. 3. Grievance of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner cannot be dislodged from his services on the pretext that certain juniors have obtained positive orders from the Court and they have to be inducted. Submission is that the writ petitioner is entitled to continue and by virtue of an oral order of termination, his services have been kept at naught. It is also contended that in view of the fact that the writ petitioner is working for a long span of period, thus he could not have been meted with such type of treatment whereby oral termination order ought not to have been issued. He also seeks to rely upon the order passed in Writ-A No.10728 of 2025, Ram Janam Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Kripal Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Yadav vs. State of U.P, who is junior to the writ petitioner and senior to the incumbents was granted protection. 4. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that since it is the allegation of the writ petitioner that he has been disengaged orally on 21.06.2025 and according to him, a conscious decision is to be taken by the respondents looking into the claim set up by the writ petitioner, thus he submits that the grievance of the writ petitioner shall be examined by Up-Ziladhikari, Tehsil Nizamabad, District Azamgarh. 5. To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same. 6. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, and looking into the over all facts situation, including the allegation that the services of the writ petitioner as Seasonal Collection Peon have been dispensed with orally and he is senior to two incumbents, reference has been made hereinabove, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive application/representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.4/ District Magistrate, District Azamgarh by 17.10.2025, thereafter the second respondent, on the said motion, shall decide the claim of the writ petitioner after summoning the records from the relevant authorities and proceed to pass order strictly in accordance with law bearing in mind the fact that it is the allegation of the writ petitioner that the two juniors of the writ petitioner have been retained whereas the writ petitioner's services has been dispensed with. The said exercise is to be completed say by 14.11.2025. 7. In case the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter needs to be decided/ redressed by any other authority, then the papers be transmitted to the said authority in order to enable the writ petitioner to do the needful for providing inputs, if so required. 8. With the said observations, writ petition stands disposed of. October 9, 2025 N.S.Rathour WRIA No. 15038 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad