Madhurkant And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 13822 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13401 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Madhurkant And 10 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Budhwar,Javed Husain Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 

Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 7 of 2019

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the amendment application. Accordingly, amendment application is dismissed.

Order on petition

The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2017 and 27.02.2017 whereby the appointments of those Seasonal Collection Peons made after the government order was issued on 29.08.2001, have been held to be illegal appointments/engagements on the post of Seasonal Collection Peons and has thus put a ban general in nature that no further appointments be made in this category after 29.08.2001 and, if any, such appointments have been made or are being made then the concerned officer shall be accountable for such illegal act. By the order dated 27.02.2017, the payment of salary to such Seasonal Collection Peons who had been appointed after 29.08.2001 as further been stayed.

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stand taken by the respondents in holding that the appointments made after government order was issued on 29.08.2001 putting a ban on such appointments, to be only unattainable for the simple reason that the said government order came to be subsequently superseded by the government order dated 21.06.2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that this aspect has come to be considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 20825 of 2017 and the stand taken by the respondents in the said case which is impugned here in this petition also stands untenable and accordingly, the court has set aside the order dated 21.01.2017 and 27.02.2017 in respect of those petitioners. He, therefore, submits that since those very orders are also under challenge before this Court and relate to the same district, those orders are liable to be treated as set aside in terms of the judgment dated 28.02.2023.

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the claim of the petitioners that the petitioners' writ petition/case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 28.02.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 20825 of 2017 (Kailash and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others).

In view of the above, this petition succeeds and allowed in terms of the judgment dated 28.02.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 20285 of 2017 (Kailash and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others). Consequences to follow.

Order Date :- 2.5.2023

M.S. Ansari