Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash vs State Of U.P., Thru.Secy., … on 29 January, 2010
Court No. - 24

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 500 of 2010

Petitioner :- Om Prakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru.Secy., P.W.D., & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Shobh Nath Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being
disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as
Beldar on regular basis. On vacancy accrued on account of retirement of one Shri
Shiv Prasad, who was working on the post of Mate, petitioner moved an application
to the Assistant Engineer-I, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department,
Faizabad to give the charge of Mate. On receipt of the said application, the Assistant
Engineer-I recommended the petitioner’s claim for appointment on the post of Mate
on 23.6.2008 but no heed was paid by the authority concerned. Thereafter, the
petitioner moved another application to the Executive Engineer, Construction
Division-II, Public Works Department, Faizabad to promote the petitioner on the post
of Mate from the post of Beldar along with Government Order dated 12.10.1983 and
the transfer certificate of Class VIII but the Executive Engineer did not pay any heed
in the matter. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition inter
alia on the grounds that the petitioner is working on the post of Mate from July, 2008
after retirement of Shiv Prasad and opposite party has given the salary to the
petitioner on the post of Beldar.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the relief
claimed in the instant writ petition but restrict his prayer only to the extent that
opposite party No.4-Executive Engineer, Construction Division-II, Public Works
Department, Faizabad may be directed to consider and take appropriate decision on
the application of the petitioner dated 22.9.2009 as contained in Annexure No.5 to
the writ petition, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is
disposed of finally with a direction to the opposite party No.4 to consider and take
appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner dated 22.9.2009 as
contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, in accordance with law,
expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order and communicate the decision so taken to the petitioner
forthwith.

Order Date :- 29.1.2010
Ajit/-


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

11 queries in 0.362 seconds.