Rajvir Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11353 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajvir Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others on 9 October, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:179122
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - A No. - 14765 of 2025   
 
   Rajvir Singh    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Naveen Kumar Tripathi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Rahul Chaudhary   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 32
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.      

1.Heard Sri Naveen Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel and Sri G.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Chaudhary on behalf of respondent no.4.

2. Petitioner before this Court has approached that initially he was appointed on the post of Lecturer on adhoc basis in the year 1986.

3. In the year 1990, a substantive appointment was made by the Commission. Challenge to it at the behest of the petitioner was rejected by a Division Bench judgment of this Court vide judgment and order dated 2.1.2006 and later on his all his claims were rejected by a subsequent order dated 30.1.1990. An attempt before Supreme Court was also rejected vide order dated 3.7.2006. All the judgments are on record.

4. Meanwhile, petitioner was confined to jail in pursuance of a criminal trial and was convicted also. In the year 2012 appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and was granted acquittal vide judgment and order dated 10.10.2012. Thereafter also, petitioner remained in slumber and in the year 2025, he has now approached this Court that his entire retiral dues be granted to him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has worked and he was behind jail, therefore there was a delay in approaching concerned respondent and has approached this Court that his claim be considered by concerned respondent in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner has lost all his claim by a reasoned judgment passed by this Court wayback in the year 2006, therefore, no circumstances exist to reopen his case since all his claim has already been rejected.

7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

8. A Division Bench of this Court has passed a judgment in the year 2006 wherein specific reason was assigned as to why appointment of the petitioner was bad in law as well as ancillary prayer to grant salary etc., was also rejected. Said judgment has attained finality. Challenge to it before Supreme Court was also rejected. Therefore, at this belated stage to reopen the case would not be legally correct, rather it would be against the settled position of facts as well as on law being against the petitioner, as referred above.

9. Accordingly, the prayers made in this writ petition has no legal basis.

10. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

October 9, 2025

SB