RAJNEESH KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIA/2897/2025 · 2025-03-05
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24291 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24291 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32202 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2897 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwanshu Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Diwanshu Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for State- Respondents.
2. Petitioner before this Court has accepted his appointment on a Class-IV post way back on 24.08.2009 and now after a period of more than 16 years, he has approached this Court that he ought to have been appointed on a higher post since his appointment was made against a post, which fell vacant due to retirement of one, Bhukhan Lal, who was working as Lab Assistant.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner in reply to a query of this Court that this writ petition is filed by substantial delay, submits that since 2013 he is filing representations before concerned respondent and also refers a document that said Bhukhan Lal was referred in service records sometimes as Class-IV employee sometimes as Lab Assistant and, therefore, his claim may be considered even at this belated stage.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that once an appointment letter is accepted with open eyes and it has not been challenged at relevant time, mere filing of repeated representations do not fill the lacuna of delay and laches.
5. I have considered the above submission. Petitioner is not able to
deny that he has accepted his appointment on a Class-IV post and never raised objection to it. Even today it is not under challenge. Therefore, this writ petition is suffered with unexplained delay and laches of more than 16-17 years.
6. Supreme Court in catena of judgments has repeatedly held that delay cannot be explained by way of filing repeated representations. Since petitioner has joined and accepted his appointment letter completely, therefore, only on basis of certain objection so far as nature of post of Bhukhan Lal is concerned, prayer sought cannot be allowed.
7. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad