Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


O.P. Lal Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 17140 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 5988 (3 April 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working on daily wage basis in the Forest Department since 1989. The petitioner claims that in terms of the Regularization Rules,1998 since he has been working prior to the cut off date, he would be entitled to regularization on a class III post. In the order dated 9.11.2004 passed by Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi, Respondent no.3, it had been stated that the petitioner, though entitled, could not be appointed as a Junior Clerk (a class III post) because of non-availability of vacancy on such post. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that two class III posts are vacant at present on which the case of the petitioner for regularization can be considered which is not being done despite the petitioner having filed representations before the respondent-authorities in this regard.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case if, with regard to his grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner files a fresh comprehensive representation before the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi, Respondent no.3, along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said Respondent no.3, in accordance with law, as  expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of the same.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

dt. 3.4.2007


w.p. 17140.07


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.