MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF DEPTT. OF APPOINTMENT ANUBHAG U.P. CIVIL SECRT. LKO. AND OTHERS
WRIA/3144/2023 · 2025-04-10
Ajai Kumar Srivastava I, Attau Rahman Masoodi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 135579 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 135579 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20453-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3144 of 2023 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. Of Appointment Anubhag U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Vijay Dixit Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, petitioner appearing in person, Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for the High Court and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. The petitioner, who appears in person, has instituted the present writ petition against the order dated 20.09.2022 whereby in exercise of the powers under Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook, Chapter - II Part II to IV, he has been retired compulsorily from service on the basis of the Full Court proceedings held on 12.09.2022. The Full Court while considering the case of the petitioner has deliberated on the recommendations of the Screening Committee report submitted on 20.06.2022. The reasons spelt out in the report as were deliberated in the Full Court proceedings have not been assailed and in absence of any prayer made against the Full Court proceedings, the petitioner who appeared in person though offered has declined to take corrective steps in the present writ petition. Unless the reasoning on the basis of which the impugned order is passed is assailed and prayer made, the exercise is futile. The court has no reason to doubt the decision making process unless questioned and relief prayed for which the petitioner declined to do by way of amendments as he was
to attain the prescribed age of retirement in July, 2025 itself. The petitioner is drawing his pension, as such, the compulsory retirement attaches no stigma.
3. In this view of the matter, the impugned order assailed herein does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court vested by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The writ petition being bereft of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench