Ashutosh Tandon vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 26143 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:61693-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 716 of 2023
 
Appellant :- Ashutosh Tandon
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Nagar Vikas Anubhag-4 Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ghaus Beg
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

(C.M. Application No. 1 of 2023: Application for Condonation of Delay)

1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Vishal Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Pratul Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents No.1, 2 and Shri Vishal Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Nagar Nigam.

3. There is delay of 3 days in filing the present special appeal. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit.

4. Learned counsel for respondents do not have any objection, if delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned and the matter is heard on merits.

5. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is satisfactory and in absence of any objection, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.

(order on appeal)

6. The intra-Court appeal has questioned the legality of judgment/order dated 16.08.2023 rendered by the writ Court in Writ-A No.24907 of 2020, whereby, the writ petition seeking a prayer for ad-hoc appointment under Rule 31 of the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1966") has been rejected.

7. Admittedly, the appellant is a contractual employee working since the year 1999. The writ Court has elaborately considered the submissions made and in absence of any statutory support to the arguments advanced, the prayer was rejected. The position of law remains the same.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has not brought to our notice any legal basis or rule according to which, a contractual employee would be entitled to be considered for ad-hoc appointment under Rule 31 of the Rules, 1966.

9. The Court is, thus, not persuaded to take a different view contrary to the view taken by the writ Court.

10. The special appeal bereft of any merit, is accordingly, dismissed.

11. This, however, shall not prevent the State Government from taking any decision with respect to the appointment of the appellant made, if any, as per the policy decision or otherwise.

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

Order Date :- 25.9.2023

Shubhankar