Allahabad High Court
Deo Nath Patel vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 30 May, 2016
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23936 of 2016
Petitioner :- Deo Nath Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh,Ganesh Prasad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.A. Mishra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Civil Misc. Recall Application No.175599 of 2016.
Heard.
The recall application is allowed and the order dated 23.05.2016 is recalled.
Order Date :- 30.5.2016
AU.
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23936 of 2016
Petitioner :- Deo Nath Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh,Ganesh Prasad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.A. Mishra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
A recall application has been filed on the ground that against the same impugned order two more writ petition nos.23895 of 2016 (Rain Pratap V. State of U.P. and others) and 23897 of 2016 (Deena Nath Ram V. State of U.P. and others) have been filed. This Court has passed a detailed interim order. Relevant part of the order reads as under:
"Concededly, the petitioner is working uninterruptedly since 1995 and by the impugned order he has been treated to be temporary employee, whereas the order of the District Magistrate dated 15th September, 1997 indicates that the petitioner's services have been regularized by the then District Magistrate.
Thus, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case.
The matter needs consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for all the respondents.
As prayed by him, two weeks' time is granted to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List this case in the week commencing 25th July, 2016.
Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 07th May, 2016 passed by the second respondent shall remain stayed. "
In the present case also, the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to an order passed by the District Magistrate dated 15.09.1997 whereby the petitioner's services have been regularized.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no difference in the fact of the case of writ petition nos.23895 of 2016 (Rain Pratap V. State of U.P. and others) and 23897 of 2016 (Deena Nath Ram V. State of U.P. and others).
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the same fact.
Learned Standing Counsel may also file counter affidavit.
Connect this writ petition with Writ Petition No.23895 of 2016 (Ran Pratap V. State of U.P. and others).
Accordingly, the benefit of the interim order extracted hereinabove, is extended to the petitioner of this writ petition also.
Order Date :- 30.5.2016
AU
