Allahabad High Court
PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court quashed the order dated 05‑02‑2024 and remitted the petitioner's regularisation claim to the Regional Regularisation Committee for fresh consideration as per the guidelines of the earlier judgment and the Government Order.
Summary
The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, was appointed to a short‑term vacancy on 20‑01‑1995 and his request for regularisation was denied. He contended that the Government Order dated 04‑10‑2024, issued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. (Writ‑A No.21492 of 2023), should apply to his case. The Court examined whether the earlier judgment and the subsequent Government Order mandated a fresh consideration of his regularisation claim. It held that the order dated 05‑02‑2024 passed by Respondent No.2 was unlawful and quashed it. The matter was remitted to the Regional Regularisation Committee to reconsider the claim in line with paragraph 149 of the Srivastava judgment and the 04‑10‑2024 Government Order, within three months of receiving a certified copy of this order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation under the Government Order dated 04‑10‑2024 and the guidelines of paragraph 149 of Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P.
- Whether the order dated 05‑02‑2024 passed by Respondent No.2 should be quashed.
Subjects
- regularisation
- short‑term vacancy
- government order
- writ petition
- quash order
- regional regularisation committee
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 9019 of 2024
Pradeep Kumar Sharma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidya Dhar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed against a short term vacancy
on 20.01.1995. His claim for regularization was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be
extended the benefit of the Government Order dated 04.10.2024 issued in
pursuance of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ-A No.21492 of
2023 (Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. And Others) decided on
30.09.2024.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the
respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Regional
Regularization Committee to accord fresh consideration to the claim of the
petitioner, keeping in mind the guidelines laid down in paragraph no.149 of
the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar Srivastava (supra) as well as the
Government Order dated 04.10.2024, within a period of three months from
the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Committee.
5. With the aforesaid directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of.
April 30, 2026
vinay
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…