Allahabad High Court
Surya Narain Dubey vs State Of U.P.Through District ... on 10 August, 2021
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1159 of 1992
Petitioner :- Surya Narain Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through District Magistrate,Sultanpur
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Mathur,Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Prashant Singh Gaur,Sudhanshu Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard.
Instant writ petition was filed in the year 1992 praying for quashing of the oral termination order dated 21.05.1991. The writ Court vide interim order dated 19.02.1992 had directed the respondent to consider the question of re-appointment of the petitioner on an alternative post under him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that subsequent thereto the petitioner has continued in service and has also received first and second ACP.
Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 11.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.3515 of 1992 in re: Hari Shanker and another vs. State of U.P. and others, a copy of which is part of Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 07.07.2021 whereby the writ petition has been allowed, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of Hari Shanker (supra) was a case in which the petitioners of the said writ petition were placed at serial nos. 24 and 27 in the select list vis-a-vis the petitioner who has been placed at serial no.2 in the select list as specifically indicated by him in paragraph 3(ix) of the rejoinder affidavit . It is also contended that the aforesaid writ petition had been allowed considering that the petitioners had been working all along and have also been granted the benefits and thus it is claimed that similar judgment may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the instant writ petition had been dismissed in default in the year 2011 and has only been restored in pursuance to the order passed in special appeal and thus the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid judgment. No other plea has been raised.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records what is apparent is that with respect to a similar controversy the writ Court in the case of Hari Shanker (supra) while placing reliance on an earlier judgment of this Court passed in the case of Mirza Safadar Raza vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.2226 (SS) of 1992 decided on 30.01.2014, has decided a similar controversy. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner has not continued in service on the basis of order dated 19.02.1992 passed by the writ Court. Thus, there cannot be any occasion for not extending the benefit of the judgment in the case of Hari Shanker (supra) in the case of the petitioner also.
Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed off. It is provided that the petitioner would also be entitled for the benefit of the judgment in the case of Hari Shanker (supra) decided on 11.04.2016 in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.8.2021
A. Katiyar
