Chhotey Lal Singh vs State Of U.P.& Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 4549 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 30
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43144 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Chhotey Lal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Girish Chandra Maurya
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,P.R. Maurya
 

 
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Sri Veer  Singh Patel, Sadar M.L.A. 236 Chitrakoot as respondent No.6 in the array of respondents. Said incorporation be carried out forthwith.

Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4. Sri P.R.Maurya, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 5 and 6, together with  a copy of this order.

List this case on 02.11.2012. By the said date pleadings inter se parties may be exchanged.

This is a glaring case of political interference. Record in question reflects that on 16.08.2012 one Chhote Lal Singh had been assigned to perform the work of Dugdhshala  Prabhari  and Yatayat Prabhari and in his place Santosh Kumar Singh was assigned to work as Incharge engineering and milk packing. After the said arrangement had been done, Santosh Kumar Singh got written a letter from local M.L.A. from ruling party on 21.08.2012 asked the Samanya Prabandhak to cancel the charge handed over to Chhote Lal Singh and hand over the same to Santosh Kumar Singh. Immediately, after the said letter had been written, same was got received at the office of Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., and based on the said letter, Samanya Prabandhak has proceeded to pass order as was desired by the local M.L.A.

To explain the above situation, Samanya Prabandhak has been summoned, and he is present in Court. Before the Court, it has been accepted that on political pressure such arrangement  has been made and on the very next day i.e. 22.08.2012 order has been passed.

Since the order impugned dated 22.08.2012 has been passed on political pressure being exerted, its operation is directed to be kept in abeyance till the next date of listing.

On the next date fixed, the concerned M.L.A. should explain as to under which authority of law, he has proceeded to issue mandatorydirectives. Similarly Santosh Kumar Singh should explain before this Court, as to why disciplinary proceedings be not directed to be initiated against him, for exerting political pressure to gain a particular nature of work.

Personal appearance of Samanya Prabandhak is exempted until further orders.

Order Date :- 27.9.2012

SRY