Rajat Kumar Tomar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9184 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajat Kumar Tomar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 26 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148732
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT - A No. - 6615 of 2023
 
Court No. - 5
 
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ayush Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner tries to distinguish the present case from a judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, 2025:AHC:142882, however, has rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that on same facts, this Court has rejected the claim of petitioner in Sonu (supra). The relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter :-

"12. I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondent that case of petitioner is squarely covered against petitioner by aforesaid judgment of Brijesh Kumar (supra). In present case also appointment was made in pursuance of a policy decision dated 31.08.2012 and petitioner was appointed purely on contract basis without even taking aid of relevant Rules of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Only a reference that his claim was considered under the quota of deceased employee would not be sufficient to hold that appointment was made under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, therefore, reliance placed by counsel for petitioner on various judgments are not helpful.

13. In present case, appointment was purely on contract basis on basis of policy decision without aid of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, therefore, prayer made in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed."

3. I have carefully perused the order passed in Sonu (supra) and convinced that there is no reason to take a contrary view, therefore, this writ petition is also dismissed in terms of Sonu (supra).

4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court on Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 (0) SCC 1220, decided on 19.08.2025 that even employees working on contract basis for a long period, can be considered for requisition, however, the Court is of view that it being a new case, therefore, it cannot be adjudicate in present proceedings and for that purpose petitioner is at liberty to take legally permissible remedy if so advised.

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

August 26, 2025

P. Pandey