CASE SUMMARY ON STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS V. DR.

MANOJ
KUMAR SHARMA

Deeksha Yadav

CASE CITATIONS
Title of the case : State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Citation : civil appeal no. 2320 of 2021 arising out of S.L.P (civil) no. 7487 of 2020

Court : supreme court

Parties involved :

 Appellant : state of Uttar Pradesh

 Respondent : Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Bench :

Hemant Gupta

Sanjay Kishan kaul

Brief facts

The challenge in the present appeal is directed against a decision that was approved by the
Division Chamber of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Lucknow on March 5, 2020
and which confirms the decision approved by the learned Single Bench on August 7, 2019. The
appellants were ordered to charge the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner in
writing, to calculate and pay out 50% of the subsequent payments and to grant all benefits
obtained under the law.

Date of Judgement :

9th July 2021

MAJOR ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL

Appellant Arguments

Petitioner was given posting at district Badaun by means of posting order in 2002 and thus it
was contended by the respondent that since the petitioner had not complied with the posting
order therefore the petitioner was not entitled to claim any benefit on account of his non
joining it was also plea taken by the respondent that the petitioner wanted to be posted at
Saharanpur or a nearby district and though the petitioner was posted at Badaun he deliberately
did not join and kept representing to the department as joined and as such the petitioner was
not entitled to any benefit.

 Respondents Arguments

It was submitted that in the right petition he sought to post him anywhere in the state of Uttar
Pradesh and that the earlier order of finding is returned that is posting order in 2002 was not
served upon the person. The state has not produced as to how and when the posting order was
communicated to him.

Decision

The petitioner’s letter was posted in Badaun, it had to be presented at the place of duty And,
once presented at the place of duty, he should have requested the transfer if he allowed it
under State Requirement . Not having dictated the Place of apparition without joining the place
where it was first given.

We therefore state that the decisions of the Court of Appeal of March 5 th, 2020 and August 7th,
2019 are completely unjustified, unjustified, arbitrary and illegal , declared null and void and
the appeal is admitted without a decision on costs.