Allahabad High Court
Atul Kumar Srivastav And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 18 November, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75836
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10601 of 2024
Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Srivastav And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Social Welfare /Jan Jaati Vibhag U.P. Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Ambrish Kumar Pandey,Shweta Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.
Under challenge is the order dated 30.09.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. By the said order, the representation of the petitioners has been rejected.
Contention is that earlier the petitioners had filed a Writ-A No. 1633 of 2022 Inre; Atul Kumar Srivastava and 14 Ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors. The writ Court vide order dated 30.03.2022 had disposed of the said writ petition in terms of the observations made in Writ-A No. 15327 of 2021 Inre; Madhu Singh and 89 Ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors.
It is contended that initially the respondents had considered and rejected the claim of Madhu Singh and Ors as per the directions issued by the writ Court vide order dated 07.04.2022.
Subsequent thereto, upon the petitioners having preferred the aforesaid writ petition before the writ Court and the writ petition having itself been decided in terms of the directions issued by the writ Court in the light of the order passed in the case of Madhu Singh and 89 Ors (supra), the representation of the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 30.09.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. Incidentally, while rejecting the said representation, the respondents have referred to the claim of Madhu Singh and Ors having also been rejected through the representation dated 07.04.2022.
Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 07.04.2022 as passed in the case of Madhu Singh and Ors was challenged by filing Writ-A No.16435 of 2022 Inre; Madhu Singh and 82 Ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors. The writ Court vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, a copy of which is annexure 17 to the writ petition has quashed the order dated 07.04.2022 and has further directed to authority concerned to reconsider the claim of the petitioners (Madhu Singh and Ors) in view of the judgment in the case of Om Prakash and 11 Ors Vs. State of U.P and 2 Ors in Writ-A No. 680 of 2021.
Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that upon a challenge being raised by the State to the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 passed in the case of Madhu Singh (supra) vide Special Appeal No. 1000 of 2024 Inre; State of U.P and 2 Ors Vs. Madhu Singh and 82 Ors , the Division Bench of this Court has modified the judgment of the writ Court so far as it pertains to the direction contained in paragraph 14 to the extent that the respondent authority shall reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularization on the basis of argument advanced by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-petitioners including the judgment and order dated 07.01.2022 passed in the case of Madhu Singh (supra) without being influenced by the judgment of Om Prakash (supra). Copy of the judgment and order dated 07.11.2024 is annexure 18 to the writ petition.
Contention is that once the claim of the petitioners has been rejected considering the order dated 07.04.2022 which has been passed in the case of Madhu Singh and in turn the order dated 07.04.2022 as passed in the case of Madhu Singh has already been quashed by the writ Court vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 as modified by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2024 consequently, the order as passed in the case of petitioners also merits to be set aside.
It is thus contended that the Division Bench judgment passed in the case of State of U.P and Ors Vs. Madhu Singh (supra) be followed with respect to the petitioners also.
To the aforesaid argument and prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has no objection.
Accordingly, considering that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 20.09.2024 which in turn has been passed considering that the claim of Madhu Singh and Ors (supra) which had already been rejected vide order dated 07.04.2022 which order in turn has already been set aside by the writ Court and affirmed with some modification by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2024 consequently, the order impugned dated 30.09.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed.
The respondents are directed reconsider the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the Division Bench judgment dated 07.11.2024, a copy of which is annexure 18 to the writ petition.
Let such consideration be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 18.11.2024
Pachhere/-
