Allahabad High Court
Ram Anuj And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. Cooperative ... on 7 April, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19431
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6074 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ram Anuj And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Cooperative Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Pandey,Dinish Kumar Srivastava,Krishn Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Shukla,Satyendra Nath Mishra,Vijay Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.05.2017 in Service Single No.11246 of 2017 (Hanuman Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others) which has been passed after considering the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.6817 (S/S) of 2006 (Ram Pratap Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others) dated 14.11.2006. The aforesaid order passed in Hanuman Prasad's case is extracted below:-
"Heard.
The service of the petitioner herein who was working as Kurk Amin was dispensed with vide order dated 27.06.2006.The said order is now sought to be challenge on the ground that in similar circumstances one of the persons whose name figures at serial no. 3 approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 6817 (SS) of 2006(Ram Pratap Dubey versus State of U.P. and others)which was allowed on 14.11.2016, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Padam Singh Sharma versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2001(2) LIESR 819(Allahabad) wherein, the judgement of the Apex court passed in State of U.P. versus Chandra Prakash Pandey and others (2001) 2 UPLBEC,1185 was relied and it was held that Kurk Ameen appointed on commission basis for recovery of outstanding dues of Co-operative Societies were members of service and are government servant against the aforesaid background. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination of services of the petitioner without notice in the manner and circumstances indicated in the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the petitioner was a government servant as per the dictum of the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, learned Standing counsel raises an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition considering the delay of about 11 years in filing the same.
Be that as it may, if the judgment of the Supreme Court applies to the facts of the petitioners' case as had been applied by this Court in the case of Ram Pratap Dubey versus State of U.P. and others whose names also figures in the impugned order then the question would be if the order is void being contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court then whether delay by itself could be a ground for denying the claim and also when a person similarly situated approached this Court and the order so far as it relates to the said petitioner was quashed, should not the respondents have extended the benefit of the said order themselves to the other similarly situated employees whose name figured in the said list unless ofcourse the judgment dated 14.11.2006 passed in the case of Ram Pratap Dubey versus State of U.P. and others was put to challenge by means of a special appeal and if not if the same had attained finality why not the same benefit be extended to the petitioners.
Considering the aforesaid, let the opposite party no.4 take a decision in this regard with regard to the validity of the order dated 27.06.2006 in the light of the observations made hereinabove, and the decision referred above, copies of which shall be filed by the petitioner alongwith his representation to be submitted before the opposite party no.4. The decision as aforesaid shall be taken by him within three months from the date of submission of such representation. The representation shall be submitted by the petitioner within three weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The District Magistrate shall verify as to whether any special appeal was filed against the judgment dated 14.11.2006 rendered by this Court in Ram Pratap Dubey's case if so the consequences thereof. However, if no appeal was filed whether the judgement in Ram Pratap Dubey's case stands complied with or not?
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
4. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute this fact.
5. In view of above, with the consent of parties, since there is consensus at the bar that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Hanuman Prasad (supra), the petition is disposed of in terms of the said judgment.
6. However, it is needless to say that the petitioners-Ram Anuj, Narsingh Narayan and Bheekhu Ram Maurya shall give representation to the respondent No.2 in light of the judgment passed in Hanuman Prasad's case (supra) within a period of three weeks' from today and the respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Sultanpur shall take appropriate decision in terms of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Hanuman Prasad (supra).
Order Date :- 7.4.2025
Saurabh Yadav/-
