Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38455 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34500 of 2005 Petitioner :- Bhavesh Kumar Shukla And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Namwar Singh,Ashok Khare,Ravi Pratap Singh,S.K.Srivastava,S.Khare,Sanjiv Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.Shahi,Kushmondeya Shahi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tej Bhan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners have suffered due to inadequate pleadings even after an opportunity was granted by way of amendment to challenge the subsequent order dated 27.8.2014, whereby services of the petitioners got terminated on different grounds. The impugned order has referred a report dated 26.8.2014 in reference to all the petitioners and for reference, status of each petitioner as mentioned in impugned order is reproduced hereinafter: " खणड शशकक अधधककरर, कक रककत, जजनपपर कक आखयक शदनकनक 26.08.2014 कक अनपसकर सससशत शनमनवत हह- 1. शर भकवकश कप मकर शपकल एवन शर रकजकश कप मकर शपकल नक कनयक पप०मक०शव० बकहडक, कक रककत मम शदनकनक 08.12.2007 कक पशचकत शवदकलय पर ककयर नहह शकयक हह। 2. शर पममद कप मकर धसनह वतरमकन समय मम पप०मक० शवदकलय, भजरक, कह रककत मम ककयररत नहह हह। 3. शर महकनद पतकप धसनह उपसससशत पनधजकक कक अनपसकर शदनकनक 15.08.2005 तक पप०मक०शव० धपडदजड, कक रककत मम ककयररत रहक हह। वतरमकन समय मम शवदकलय मम ककयररत नहह हह। 4. शर धजयकलकल पप०मक० शव० बकहडक कक उपसससशत पनधजकक कक अनपसकर मकचर 2000 सक शदसमबर 2001 तक ककयररत रहक हह। इस ककयकरलय कक पतकनक बक०-1/6997-02/2014-15 शदनकनक 22.08.2014 कम पकप करकनक कक समबनध मम शर अरशवनद कप मकर धसनह एन०पर०आर०सर० बकहडक कक रककत नक पत पर हर अनशकत शकयक हह शक शर धजयकलकल घर पर नहह, शदलर मम रहतक हह। शर धजयकलकल कक समबनध मम एन०पर०आर०सर० बकहडक कक रककत कक आखयक/ टरप सक सपष हह शक धजयकलकल पप०मक०शव० बकहडक, कक रककत मम ककयररत नहह हह।" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that above order was challenged by way of amendment and following grounds were being nos. 27A, 27B and 27C and for reference, same are reproduced hereinafter: "27A.That service dispensed with of petitioners without have been affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 27B. That the petitioners were regularly appointed as peon and therefore their could not have been terminated. 27C. That no departmental proceedings hao undertaken and service of the petitioners has been terminated in order to over come order dated 10.03.2005." 4. Learned counsel for petitioners on basis of instructions submits that aforesaid reasons assigned in the impugned order are incorrect and contrary to record. However, he has not able to support his submissions on basis of any material document or averment or ground taken even by way of amendment. 5. Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State submits that reasons mentioned in impugned order were based on a report dated 26.8.2014, though, it is not on record. But it has not been contended by the petitioners or his counsel that aforesaid report has mentioned incorrect facts. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, since there is no material before this Court that reasons assigned in the impugned order are contrary to record as well as the petitioners despite making additional averments by way of amendment has not challenged the said findings either on law or on fact. Therefore, the reliefs sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Mohini Digitally signed by :- MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad