High CourtsDivision Bench(2016) 05 AHC CK 0336

Km. Archana Yadav vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 3 May 2016 · Citation: (2016) 3 UPLBEC 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Shukla and Umesh Chandra Srivastava, JJ.
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Special Appeal Defective No. 335 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 350 words

V.K. Shukla and Umesh Chandra Srivastava, JJ.—Ref: Delay Condonation Application

For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of Delay Condonation, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing Special Appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Delay of 177 days is condoned. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time.

Ref: Special Appeal

2.

Kumar Archana Yadav is submitting before this Court that her writ petition in question ought not to have been dismissed as it has been done vide order dated 05.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 56389/2015 (Km. Archana Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) whereas the fact of the matter is that petitioner-appellant''s engagement has been a contractual engagement and the same is liable to be renewed on work being satisfactory and petitioner-appellant submits that once her claim for renewal has been accepted, then she could not have been prevented from performing and discharging her duties.

3.

From the record in question what we a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.576/2015 (Nem Kumari and others v. State of U.P. and others) has proceeded to relegate the incumbents therein to approach the State Project Director, who will look into the grievance of the said incumbents in accordance with law.

4.

Consequently, in the facts of the case, we proceed to pass an order, as grievance of petitioner-appellant is that similarly situated incumbents are being continued and she has been illegally prohibited from performing and discharging her duties, as such we direct the State Project Director to look into the grievance of the petitioner-appellant, provided representation in question is moved within three weeks from today, thereafter decision be taken on the same within two months thereafter. The order passed by the Authority concerned as well as the Learned Single Judge on the earlier occasion, shall abide by the fresh decision to be taken by the Authority concerned i.e. State Project Director

5.

The order in question has been passed with due assistance of Shri R.B. Yadav, Advocate.

6.

With these observations/directions, Special Appeal is disposed of.