# Mohd. Alliyas v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1313 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-12-09 - **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 1257 of 2010 - **Bench:** Ravindra Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-alliyas-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41783 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India Art. 226-Right to work-Petitioner being selected on post of Director Ayurvedic-not allowed to workinstead of that Govt. Deputed Senior P.C.S. Officer-no reason disclosed-heldpetitioner having bright Service carriercan not be deprived from her promotional avenues-such action suffer from malice in law-in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar association case exemplary cost of Rs. 50000/-to petitioner and Rs. 50000 be deposited with Mediation Center imposed. Held: Para 23 and 24 We constraint to observe that government employee who possessed bright service career should not be deprived from his/her promotional avenues in case he or she is entitled in accordance with rule. The denial of promotional avenues with intention to adjust other shall be demoralizing effect on the government employee. Moreover once a person belonging to a cadre entitled for promotional avenues and for the said post he or she is selected in accordance to rules then such person can not be divested to enjoy the fruit of ## Text 3 All] Mohd. Alliyas V. State of U.P. and others 1313 In regard to the apprehension of the respondent that the Corporation will charge interest on the contribution of the employer towards the EPF, suffice would be to mention that, in such an event the respondent would also be entitled to the interest on the delayed payment of pension. 38. We, therefore, provide that no interest be charged on the EPF amount, as the respondent also says that he will not claim any interest on the amount of pension. 39. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the special appeal is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J. U/S 482/378/407 No. 1257 of 2010 Mohd. Alliyas ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: N.K. Dwivedi Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate D.R. Singh Yadav Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Offence under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC-Quashing of chargesheet-applicant ofter performing marriage with prosecutrix-got two issues from her wedlock -she admitted the marriage and physical relationship with applicant on her free will-as such continuation of criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process-held-if applicant surrender within prescribed period and executive personal bond-magistrate to commit the case for Trail before session judge with liberty to move discharge application-be considered in accordance with law. Held: Para 5 Considering the facts, circumstances of the case submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and O.P. No. 2, it is directed that applicant shall appear before the court concerned within 30 days from today, his appearance shall be noted in his present and he shall furnish his personal bonds, thereafter the matter will be committed to the court of sessions, after committal, in case the applicant moves discharge application through his counsel within 30 days thereafter, the trial court shall pass the appropriate order on the discharge application expeditiously in accordance with law. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.and learned counsel for O.P. No. 4. 2. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charesheet dated 17.2.2009 in case crime No. 4840 of 2008 under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Faizabad in case No. 13423 of 2009. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the applicant has performed the marriage with the prosecutrix, from their wedlock two children have been born. According to the medical examination report the age of prosecutrix was 22 years, according to the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she was aged about 20 years and she has not supported the prosecution 1314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 version in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has clearly stated that she has performed physical relationship with her free will and consent and she has performed the marriage. In such circumstances, the chargesheet submitted against the applicant may be quashed. 4. In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned counsel for O.P No. 2 that he has not objection in quashing the proceedings of the above mentioned case but it is submitted by learned A.GA. that such plea may be taken by the applicant at the time of framing of the charge or by way of moving the discharge application. 5. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and O.P. No. 2, it is directed that applicant shall appear before the court concerned within 30 days from today, his appearance shall be noted in his present and he shall furnish his personal bonds, thereafter the matter will be committed to the court of sessions, after committal, in case the applicant moves discharge application through his counsel within 30 days thereafter, the trial court shall pass the appropriate order on the discharge application expeditiously in accordance with law. 6. With this direction, this application is finally disposed of. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE B.K. NARAYANA, J. Service Bench No.-1680 of 2009 Dr. Raksha Goswami ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sanjay Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. Constitution of India Art. 226-Right to work-Petitioner being selected on post of Director Ayurvedic-not allowed to workinstead of that Govt. Deputed Senior P.C.S. Officer-no reason disclosed-heldpetitioner having bright Service carriercan not be deprived from her promotional avenues-such action suffer from malice in law-in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar association case exemplary cost of Rs. 50000/-to petitioner and Rs. 50000 be deposited with Mediation Center imposed. Held: Para 23 and 24 We constraint to observe that government employee who possessed bright service career should not be deprived from his/her promotional avenues in case he or she is entitled in accordance with rule. The denial of promotional avenues with intention to adjust other shall be demoralizing effect on the government employee. Moreover once a person belonging to a cadre entitled for promotional avenues and for the said post he or she is selected in accordance to rules then such person can not be divested to enjoy the fruit of