AKHILESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. PUBLIC WORK DEPTT. U.P. SHASHAN LKO. AND 5 OTHERS
WRIA/6408/2025 · 2025-05-30
Karunesh Singh Pawar
Civil Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 143559 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 143559 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33817 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6408 of 2025 Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. U.P. Shashan Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 25.4.2025 passed by respondent No.5, with a further writ of mandamus directing respondents to count daily wages services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1984 to 22.1.1991 for pensionary benefits. The petitioner's counsel has submitted that vide impugned order dated 25.4.2025, Annexure-1 to the petition, the prayer made by the petitioner in his representation dated 24th March, 2024 has been denied by one line order and no reason has been assigned by respondent No.5 as to why his past services from 1984 cannot be counted for the purpose of giving pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards representation dated 24.3.2025 given by the petitioner where he has relied on judgment of Supreme Court dated 23.8.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2017 Habib Khan versus State of Uttarakhand and others. Learned Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that the order is sans any reason and it is a non-speaking order. I have considered the submission and perused the record. This court finds that the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order and the judgment of Supreme Court referred to in the petitioner's representation has not been adhered to while passing the order. In view of the above, the impugned order, Annexure No.1, being non-speaking and unreasoned is liable to be and is hereby set aside. The respondent No.6 Executive Engineer, Construction Division-2, P.W.D. is directed to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law and by a speaking and reasoned order within a
period of two months while taking into account the grounds taken in the petitioner's representation (supra). The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench