Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

YATENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHERversusREGIONAL MANAGER RAJYA BHANDARAN AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petition without merits, directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager for expeditious decision.

Summary

The petitioners, Yatendra Singh and another, filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of their services with the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation. They alleged that their representation for regularisation had not been decided. The respondents argued that the matter required factual determination by the competent authority and that the petitioners' employment status (permanent or contractual) needed clarification, but they did not oppose a direction for the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager. The Court held that keeping the writ pending would serve no useful purpose and therefore disposed of the petition without addressing the merits, directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation within three weeks and for the Regional Manager to decide it within three months. The order was signed by Justice Dinesh Pathak, and the petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the writ petition seeking regularisation of services can be entertained without a factual determination of the petitioners' employment status.
  • Whether the Court should direct the petitioners to move a fresh representation before the Regional Manager for adjudication.

Subjects

  • regularisation
  • service
  • writ petition
  • representation
  • administrative law
  • employment
  • U.P. State Warehousing Corporation

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                       WRIT - A No. - 14014 of 2026

Yatendra Singh And Another
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
Regional Manager Rajya Bhandaran And Another
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)              :   Hari Narayan Singh, Kanchan
Counsel for Respondent(s)              :   Bal Mukund Singh

Court No. - 32
                     HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bal Mukund Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation
(respondent nos. 1 and 2).

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation seeking
regularization of their services has not been decided till date.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter requires
factual determination, as per the applicable law, by the competent authority
in the first instance, and that the claim of the petitioners needs to be
ascertained as to whether they were appointed by the Corporation on its rolls
or were contractual employees engaged through a contractor. However, he
fairly contends that the claim of the petitioners for regularization is liable to
be considered and decided by the Regional Manager of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation (respondent no. 1), and he has no objection if a
direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh representation to be
moved by the present petitioners within such stipulated period, as may be
directed by this Court.

4. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation
on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioners to move a
fresh representation before the Regional Manager of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation (respondent no. 1) to ventilate their grievances, as
raised in this petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with
                                                                                              WRIA No. 14014 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    a certified copy of this order and a self attested copy of the instant writ
                                    petition, who, in turn, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with
                                    law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date
                                    of production of the same, if there is no any other legal impediment.

                                    5. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition is disposed of.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    vinay
                                                                                               (Dinesh Pathak,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.