Deepak Kumar vs State Of Up And 5 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 37597 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Deepak Kumar vs State Of Up And 5 Others on 14 November, 2024

Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178992-DB
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 796 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- Deepak Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar Ojha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Ojha
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The Special Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by Single Judge in Writ-C No. 21245 of 2024.

3. The facts of the present case, in brief are that the petitioner was engaged as Panchayat Assistant/Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator in Gram Panchayat Ratuprua, District Moradabad on 24.09.2021 for a period of one year. The employment was purely contractual.

4. It appears that a notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.08.2023, calling an explanation regarding complaints received against him. It appears that after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, an order has been passed, a copy where of is to be found on page 76 of the paper book, stating that it has been resolved to discontinue the services of the petitioner.

5. Prima-facie, this order appears to have been passed upon the representation/application filed by the petitioner claiming arrears due to him. This payment was refused by the concerned authority.

6. From the facts noted above and as recorded in the judgment under appeal, the period for which the petitioner was engaged with effect from 24.09.2021 to 23.09.2022. The learned Single Judge has also observed that there is no material on the record of the writ petition that any extension or re-engagement order was passed or issued and, therefore, the term of appointment came to an end automatically on 23.09.2022.

7. The order that was challenged in writ petition was not a termination order as discontinuation of the services of the petitioner took place automatically on 23.09.2022. An order passed subsequently, refusing arrears claimed by the petitioner cannot in any manner be stigmatic.

8. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 14.11.2024

PS