Allahabad High Court
/14038/2025 of SANTOSH KUMAR KURMI Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. AND 2 OTHERS on 4 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 14038 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 3 and Mr. Ambrish Rai learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 14038 of 2025
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 3 and Mr. Ambrish Rai learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite party no. 2 to repatriate petitioner with immediate effect.
3. It has been submitted that petitioners who were initially appointed in the Public Works Department of the State Government were sent on deputation to the Uttar Pradesh Expressway Industrial Development Authority and have now spent more than seven years on such deputation but the opposite parties are not repatriating them despite the fact that petitioner is entitled to such repatriation.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon in the case of State of Punjab and others versus Inder Singh and others to buttress the fact that petitioner is required to be repatriated.
5. For the said grievance petitioner has already submitted a representation but seek liberty to file a fresh representation before the authority concerned.
6. Considering the innocuous prayer, without entering into merits, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party no. 2 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Uttar Pradesh Expressway Industrial Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arjun Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sharad Tewari Santosh Kumar Kurmi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
Development Authority (UPEIDA), Lucknow (U.P.) who shall consider and decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority along with fresh representation in the light of aforesaid judgment in case the same is applicable upon petitioner. Petitioner shall annex copy of the aforesaid judgment along with the copy of this order.
7. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of. December 4, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 14038 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench