Allowed

Waseem Ahmed v. State of U.P., through Principle Secretary,(Basic Education), Sachiwalaya Building, and 4 others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2018WRIA/4091/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition against an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for session benefit and salary. The Court held that the rejection relied on a Government Order superseded by its own judgment in Angad Yadav's case. The matter was remitted to the authority to decide afresh within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad to decide afresh within two months.

Waseem Ahmed Vs State of U.P., through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4091 of 2018 Petitioner :- Waseem Ahmed Respondent :- State Of U.P., Through Principle Secretary,(Basic Education), Sachiwalaya Building, And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shamim Uddin Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Shamim Uddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Vivek Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri A.K. Yadav, Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶5

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 28.6.2017 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad, whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 28.4.2017 has been turned down and for direction to the respondents to provide session benefit upto 31.3.2016 as well as salary from July, 2015 to October, 2015, annual increments and other pensionary benefits to him.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner precisely submits that while passing the impugned order, much emphasis has been placed on the Government Order dated 2nd May, 2017 and relying the same the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. He submits that the aforesaid Government Order was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.33360 of 2017 ( Angad Yadav & 7 Ors Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors .). The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 19.8.2017 and the aforesaid Government order dated 2.5.2017 was set aside. The petitioners in the said writ petition were made entitled for their salary from 30th June, 2015 till the date of their rejoining. He states that while passing the order impugned the respondent authority has not taken into consideration the order passed in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) and the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶7

So far as the factual as well as legal aspect of the matter is concerned, the same is accepted by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri A.K. Yadav Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5.

¶8

In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned cannot sustain and the same is accordingly set aside.

¶9

With the consent of the parties, the matter is remitted back to the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad to decide the matter afresh in light of the judgment and order passed in Angad Yadav's case within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶10

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.2.2018 Akbar/RKP

Waseem Ahmed v. State of U.P., through Principle Secretary,(Basic Education), Sachiwalaya Building, and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem Ahmed v. State of U.P., through Principle Secretary,(Basic Education), Sachiwalaya Building, and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digvijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rekha Lal Vs State of U.P. through Education Madhyamik, U.P.

Indu Devi and 2 Orthers Vs State of U.P. and 1 Orthers

Arpita Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Committee of Mangement Rai Bahadur Ghyanshyam Singh J.H.S. Vs State of Up and 2 Others

lal bachan and 14 others Vs State of U.P. and 6 others