Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Malik vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 19 May, 2022
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7655 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Malik Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kalp Nath Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Kalp Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to work and regularized on the post of Class-III employee in the institution Rastriya Kisan Post Graduate College, Shamli, District-Shamli.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk, Computer Operator on 29.11.2010 and fixed the payment of Rs. 3,500/- per month and the services of the petitioner were extended time to time. Subsequently, as the petitioner's mother has some health issues, the petitioner, for treatment of his mother, moved an application on 13.01.2016, requesting for grant of leave for the period from 13.01.2016 to 14.01.2016. The petitioner's mother was discharged from the hospital on 04.02.2016 after which he went to join the institution, however, he came to know that his services have been terminated by order dated 04.02.2016, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the termination order has not been challenged, hence the petition cannot be entertained. He further submits that services of the petitioner has been terminated way back in the year 2016 and since his appointment was on honorarium basis, there being no application on record requesting leave, therefore, the relief so prayed cannot be granted. However, he has not objection, in case, the petitioner makes a fresh application/representation before the concerned Committee of Management, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel states that it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent nos.4 and 5 as no purpose would be served by keeping the present petition pending. They also agreed that this petition may be finally decided at this stage without calling for any further affidavit specially in view of the order proposed to be passed today.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all the documents so advised as well as certified copy of this order before the concerned Committee of Management, raising all his grievances within a period of two weeks from today. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the concerned Committee of Management shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 19.5.2022 Jitendra/-