✦ High Court of India · 05 Mar 2025

Om Prakash Dwivedi v. State of U.P

Case Details High Court of India · 05 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
05 Mar 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,377 words

Petitioner :- Smt. Rachana Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20810 of 2019 Petitioner :- Archana Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20860 of 2019 Petitioner :- Awdhesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,C.S.C.,Vibhu Rai With 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20955 of 2019 Petitioner :- Partho Protim Lahiry And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21220 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Saurabh Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21856 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tripathi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari,Gaurav Singh,Kripa Shanker Singh(Senior Adv.),Vikas Budhwar Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C.,Vibhu Rai With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24898 of 2016 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32150 of 2016 Petitioner :- Sarjoo Prasad And 27 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Vijay Kumar Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 4 With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32152 of 2016 Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra Pandey And 22 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Vijay Kumar Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42274 of 2016 Petitioner :- Vijay Walia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49837 of 2017 Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Pandey And 24 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari,Raghwendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51211 of 2017 Petitioner :- Balwant Kumar Pandey And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Chandan Sharma,Gaurav Bishan,Shailendra,Siddharth Srivastava,Somesh Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 623 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Kailash Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others 5 Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Anand Priya Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Durga Tiwari and Mr. Nikhil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondents in leading case being WRIT-A No.- 40277 of 2016 and other respective counsel in other connected cases.

2. Matter was heard at length and learned counsel for parties have submitted their respective submissions and referred judgments passed by Single Bench, Division Bench in Review Application as well as by Supreme Court, on the issue involved in the present bunch of cases.

3. Details of the judgment cited are as follows: “1. Writ-A No.35758 of 2016, Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors, decided on 26.7.2022.

2. Writ-A No.37212 of 2016, Partho Protim Lahiry Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors, along with other connected matters, decided on 10.5.2018.

3. Civil Misc. Review Application No.5 of 2018 along with ofher connected matters, decided on 15.9.2021.

4. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).24746 of 2019 decided on 2.8.2019.“

4. It is not under much dispute that appointment of petitioners were considered to be on contractual basis and there were not entitled for regularization. However, since they were allowed to work for sufficient period, therefore, their services were protected and Court takes reference of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Partho Protim Lahiry (supra) which has attained finality upto the Supreme Court, though a review application is still pending on a ground that a writ petition filed by similarly situated persons in Partho Protim Lahiry (supra) similar claim was earlier rejected. However, as it has been 6 rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that both the said issues were also taken note of by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.35758 of 2016, Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors, which was allowed vide order dated 26.7.2022. For reference, relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter: “Considering the aforesaid facts, in the considered opinion of this Court that the judgment rendered by the earlier division bench would be now of no consequence in view of acquiescence on the part of respondents for continuation of services pertaining to the petitioner and so this Court finds that the present petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 10th May, 2018. Considering the aforesaid, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as indicated in the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2018 passed in Writ-A No.37212 of 2016, Partho Protim Lahiry versus State of U.P. and others. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs.”

5. In aforesaid circumstances, not only there are judgments in favour of petitioners by Division Bench of this Court which has been upheld by Supreme Court, but subsequently by Co-ordinate Bench also, therefore, this Court has no reason to take a contrary view.

6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the respondent no.3 in WRIT-A No.-40277 of 2016 and other impugned orders in other connected cases are hereby set-aside and all the writ petitions are allowed in terms of Partho Protim Lahiry (supra). Order Date :- 5.3.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Smt. Rachana Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20810 of 2019 Petitioner :- Archana Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20860 of 2019 Petitioner :- Awdhesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,C.S.C.,Vibhu Rai With 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20955 of 2019 Petitioner :- Partho Protim Lahiry And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21220 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Saurabh Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21856 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tripathi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari,Gaurav Singh,Kripa Shanker Singh(Senior Adv.),Vikas Budhwar Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C.,Vibhu Rai With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24898 of 2016 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32150 of 2016 Petitioner :- Sarjoo Prasad And 27 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Vijay Kumar Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 4 With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32152 of 2016 Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra Pandey And 22 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Vijay Kumar Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42274 of 2016 Petitioner :- Vijay Walia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49837 of 2017 Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Pandey And 24 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari,Raghwendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51211 of 2017 Petitioner :- Balwant Kumar Pandey And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Chandan Sharma,Gaurav Bishan,Shailendra,Siddharth Srivastava,Somesh Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.),C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 623 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Kailash Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others 5 Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Anand Priya Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Durga Tiwari and Mr. Nikhil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondents in leading case being WRIT-A No.- 40277 of 2016 and other respective counsel in other connected cases.

2. Matter was heard at length and learned counsel for parties have submitted their respective submissions and referred judgments passed by Single Bench, Division Bench in Review Application as well as by Supreme Court, on the issue involved in the present bunch of cases.

3. Details of the judgment cited are as follows: “1. Writ-A No.35758 of 2016, Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors, decided on 26.7.2022.

2. Writ-A No.37212 of 2016, Partho Protim Lahiry Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors, along with other connected matters, decided on 10.5.2018.

3. Civil Misc. Review Application No.5 of 2018 along with ofher connected matters, decided on 15.9.2021.

4. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).24746 of 2019 decided on 2.8.2019.“

4. It is not under much dispute that appointment of petitioners were considered to be on contractual basis and there were not entitled for regularization. However, since they were allowed to work for sufficient period, therefore, their services were protected and Court takes reference of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Partho Protim Lahiry (supra) which has attained finality upto the Supreme Court, though a review application is still pending on a ground that a writ petition filed by similarly situated persons in Partho Protim Lahiry (supra) similar claim was earlier rejected. However, as it has been 6 rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that both the said issues were also taken note of by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.35758 of 2016, Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors, which was allowed vide order dated 26.7.2022. For reference, relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter: “Considering the aforesaid facts, in the considered opinion of this Court that the judgment rendered by the earlier division bench would be now of no consequence in view of acquiescence on the part of respondents for continuation of services pertaining to the petitioner and so this Court finds that the present petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 10th May, 2018. Considering the aforesaid, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as indicated in the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2018 passed in Writ-A No.37212 of 2016, Partho Protim Lahiry versus State of U.P. and others. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs.”

5. In aforesaid circumstances, not only there are judgments in favour of petitioners by Division Bench of this Court which has been upheld by Supreme Court, but subsequently by Co-ordinate Bench also, therefore, this Court has no reason to take a contrary view.

6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the respondent no.3 in WRIT-A No.-40277 of 2016 and other impugned orders in other connected cases are hereby set-aside and all the writ petitions are allowed in terms of Partho Protim Lahiry (supra). Order Date :- 5.3.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments