Allahabad High Court
Udai Bhan Singh vs State Ofu.P.Thr.Secy Reveneu And 3 Ors on 14 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28179 Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3850 of 2006 Petitioner :- Udai Bhan Singh Respondent :- State Ofu.P.Thr.Secy Reveneu And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- G.C.Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29-04-2006 passed by the opposite party no 3, as contained in Annexure No.1 with this writ petition after summoning the original of the same from the said opposite party,
(b)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to make any interference in the smooth functioning of the petitioner as Lekhpal and allow him to continue in service as he was working before passing the impugned order and pay him regular salary every month without any hindrance;
(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.3 to send the petitioner on training according to the order dated 29-03-2006 issued by the opposite party no.2, which is going to be commenced from 1st May to 5th May, 2006 for 3 months"
3. While entertaining the present petition this Court has passed order dated 5.5.2006, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Heard Mr. G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 29th April, 2006, whereby the petitioner has been denied from sending on training for Lekhpal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue, State of U.P. has issued a Circular to all the District Magistrates of Uttar Pradesh on 27th March, 2006, whereby he issued a direction to send all those Lekhpals who have completed 10 years service and this would be the last opportunity for them. If any one of them fails to avail the opportunity he will not get any opportunity for training.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the premises the petitioner was allowed to continue in terms of interim order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 610 of 1985 filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed ultimately and on account of which he is not being sent on training.
After perusal of the order passed by this court, it is obvious that the writ petition has been dismissed without causing any prejudice to the right of the petitioner if he has been regularized in service and he has placed in the seniority list.
The learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this court towards the letter dated 7th October, 2005 issued by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Faizabad which is a pay certificate, whereby it has been certified that the petitioner is a regular and confirmed employee. The petitioner has also annexed the seniority list as Annexure-5 to the writ petition in which he has been placed at Sl. No.74. In the seniority list his date of sustained appointment has been shown as 25.3.1983. Thus, there is no dispute that the petitioner is continuously working as a regular and confirmed employee since more than 10 years and he is entitled for training.
Under the circumstances, I hereby stay the operation of the order dated 29th April, 2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Apar Ziladhikari (Prashasan)/Record Officer, District Faizabad and the respondents are directed to send the petitioner on training forthwith.
Four weeks' time as prayed by the learned Standing Counsel is allowed to file the counter affidavit.
List after four weeks."
4. In compliance of the order of this Court a short counter affidavit dated 10.7.2007 has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel. The relevant paragraph nos. 8, 9 and 10 is quoted hereinbelow:-
"8. That subsequently the District Magistrate, Faizabad vide his letter No. 88/89/Bhulekh (Saat)/Apra.Lekh./2006 dated: operation 29.4.2006. of 3.5.2006 stayed the the Order dated:29.4.2006.
9. That thereafter vide Order dated: 3.5.2006 the Petitioner has been sent for obtaining training of the Revenue Inspector to the Lekhpal Training Institute, Gonda.
10. That in view of the aforesaid facts since the Petitioner has now been sent for obtaining training of the Revenue Inspector to the Lekhpal Training Institute, Gonda, the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner in the instant Writ Petition no more survives and there does not seem to be any Petitioner ground good to pursue for the the instant Writ Petition any further, which has since become infructuous and liable to be dismissed as such."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed in the year 2006 and at that time the petitioner was more than 50 years and he has attained the age of superannuation.
6. After going through the record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is an admitted position in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been sent for obtaining training of the Revenue Inspector to the Lekhpal Training Institute, Gonda which is relief prayed for by the Petitioner in the instant Writ Petition. The impugned order dated 29.4.2006 was stayed and the petitioner was sent for training. The petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. The impugned order cannot survive. Consequently, the order dated 29.4.2006 is quashed.
7. The petition is allowed.
[Brij Raj Singh, J.] Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Anuj Singh