Allahabad High Court
RENUversusREGIONAL MANAGER RAJYA BHANDARAN NIGAM LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of without merits, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager for adjudication.
Summary
The petitioner, Renu, filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of her services with the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation. The respondents argued that the matter required factual determination by the competent authority and that the petitioner's status—whether a regular employee or a contractual worker—must first be ascertained. They contended that any decision on regularisation should be made by the Regional Manager of the corporation and offered no objection to the court directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation. The court held that keeping the petition pending would serve no useful purpose and therefore disposed of it without addressing the merits. The petitioner was directed to move a fresh representation before the Regional Manager within three weeks, and the authority was instructed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for deciding the petitioner's claim for regularisation of services?
Subjects
- regularisation
- service tenure
- writ petition
- administrative law
- representation
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6865 of 2026
Renu
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Regional Manager Rajya Bhandaran Nigam
Lucknow And Another .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sangita Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bal Mukund Singh
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Sangita Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bal
Mukund Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the U.P. State Warehousing
Corporation (respondent Nos. 1 and 2).
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation for regularisation
of her 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 petitioner needs to be
ascertained as to whether she was appointed by the Corporation on its rolls
or was a contractual employee engaged through a contractor. However, he
fairly contends that the claim of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner to move a
fresh representation before the Regional Manager of the U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation (respondent No. 1) to ventilate her grievances, as
raised in this petition, within a period of three weeks from today, along with
WRIA No. 6865 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 observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
May 7, 2026
vinay
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…