Sri Keshan Yadav vs State of U.P.

Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

The case of the petitioner is that he has worked since 1988. The services of the petitioner instead of being regularized was terminated in the year 2007. Petitioner filed a writ petition in which a direction was issued to the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation has been rejected by way of Annexure-1. Sri A.M. Tripathi has pointed that the opposite parties have rejected the case of the petitioner relying on the judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, Sri Tripathi says that in a recent judgment of Supreme Court this position has been clarified and there can be a fresh interpretation of the judgment in the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2006, State of Karnatka and Ors. v. M.L. Keshari and Ors....

Accordingly, the order dated 19.10.2007 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition, is hereby set aside and the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the latest decision of the Supreme Court. If the petitioner moves fresh representation along with the copy of the judgment before the opposite parties, the opposite parties shall have two months to decide the same and communicate the decision so taken to the petitioner.

With these observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of finally.