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


Rajendra Prasad And Others v. Secy. Personnel Department U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 68275 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 12903 (3 August 2006)


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).


                                                                               Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68275 of 2005

Rajendra Prasad and another


Secretary Personnel Department, Government of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Petitioners had been appointed as Class III employees in the U.P. Cement Corporation Limited, Chunar Unit, District Mirzapur. They were both appointed in November, 1989 under the special recruitment drive for filling up the backlog reserved vacancies. Subsequently on the winding up and consequent closure of the U.P.Cement Corporation Limited, the services of the petitioners came to an end on 8.12.1999. Thereafter, along with several other persons, the petitioners filed writ petition no. 26888 of 2000 Rajeshwar Kumar Rajesh and 21 others vs. State of U.P. and others with the prayer for a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to give them alternate employment. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.1.2005 with the direction to the State of U.P. to pass appropriate and detailed reasoned order with regard to giving the petitioners alternative appointment, after taking into consideration the various judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court, as had been mentioned in the order dated 18.1.2005. By means of the impugned order dated 16.5.2005, without discussing the facts of the case or as to why the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefits of the various  Government Orders and the Regularization Rules, the Respondent no.2 has merely stated that the case of the petitioners cannot be considered in terms of the orders passed by the Apex Court and has, thus, rejected the representation of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have filed this writ petition, with a further prayer for a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners on the posts of Group C within a specified period.

I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri K.C.Vishwakarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel appearing for Respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

Sri Khare has submitted that the claim of the petitioners has neither been considered in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court (as directed vide order dated 18.1.2005) nor has their claim been considered in terms of Retrenchment Rules, 1991 as amended by the State Government from time to time.

Learned Standing counsel has, however, submitted that since the petitioners were appointed in the U.P.Cement Corporation Limited in November, 1989 which was much after the cut off date given in Absorption  Rules of 1991, hence they would not be entitled to such absorption. However, it may be noticed that no such ground has been taken by the Respondent no.2 in the impugned order dated 16.5.2005.

From a perusal of the impugned order dated 16.5.2005 it is clear that the respondent-authority has not considered the facts relating to the appointment in service of the Corporation and the subsequent retrenchment of the petitioners nor has it been stated as to why the petitioners would not be entitled to absorption in terms of the judgment cited in the order dated 18.1.2005 passed in their earlier writ petition. The impugned order has also not taken into consideration as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the Retrenchment Rules, 1991 or not. The direction to the Respondent no.2 by order dated 18.1.2005 passed by this Court was to pass appropriate and detailed reasoned order. Reasoned order in a particular case cannot be passed without discussing the factual aspect of the matter. Since in the present case neither any fact relating to the service of the petitioners has been considered nor the legal aspect with regard to the absorption have been appropriately considered, in my view, the impugned order dated 16.5.2005 has been passed mechanically without considering the merits of the case and thus deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, the order dated 16.5.2005 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Respondent no.2 who may take a fresh decision, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of a fresh representation by the petitioners along with a certified copy of this order.

This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated as above.

Dt/- August 3, 2006




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.