Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 114597 (ALL)

MAHENDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. U.P. S.R.T.C. LKO. U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

/207/2025 · 2025-01-13

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2267 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 207 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahendra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. S.R.T.C. Lko. U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandresh Yadav,Niharika Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 19.09.2023 whereby petitioner's representation for being attached with the Barabanki Depot has been rejected. 3. As per submissions of learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, it transpires that petitioner had earlier been engaged by the Corporation on contract basis for a period of 11 months, which was renewed from time to time. It also appears that petitioner was engaged on the post of Conductor in the buses plied by the Corporation but subsequently on account of certain circumstances, made an application for being attached to the office instead of in the field. 4. The impugned order has been passed primarily on the ground that there is no provision whereunder a person engaged on a contract basis for a particular employment can be adjusted or attached on some other post. 5. It also appears from the record that in the meantime, subsequent to passing of the impugned order, petitioner's contract with the opposite parties has expired without any further renewal and, therefore, admittedly he is not in the employment of the Corporation at all. 6. There also does not appear to be any provision under the rules or regulations of the Corporation for granting relief as has been sought by the petitioner. 7. In view thereof, there does not appear to be any occasion to interfere with the order impugned. 8. However, in view of the fact that petitioner has rendered service with the Corporation for the past 20 years, liberty is granted to the Corporation to engage petitioner in any other suitable employment, in case so desired, upon a representation being made by the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.1.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench