Partly allowed

Ajay Kumar Asthana and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2018WRIA/4361/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerning salary claims for Assistant Teachers was disposed of on consent. The court directed the District Inspector of Schools to consider the petitioners' representation in terms of the Sushil Kumar Yadav decision within four weeks after taking comments from the third respondent. The court explicitly stated it did not consider the claims on merit. The case does not provide en

What the court decided

AI extract

Ajay Kumar Asthana and 2 Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4361 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Asthana And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R. K. Singh Kaosik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

¶5

Shri Sundar Sav Inter College Kamala Nagar, Jaigaha Jaunpur, an intermediate institution, duly recognized and in grant-in-aid of the State. Provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable on the institution. The petitioners claim to have been appointed as Assistant Teachers under sub-Section 11 of Section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, against three vacancies having arisen in the institution. By the instant petition, petitioners seek salary for the post in question.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered in Sushil Kumar Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ-A No. 48244 of 2017) decided on 31.10.2017, therefore, it is urged that the petition may be decided in terms of the aforementioned decision.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the legal proposition.

¶8

In regard thereto, writ petition, on consent, stands disposed of directing the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners by a reasoned and speaking order in terms of the decision rendered in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra) after taking comments from the third respondent, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.

¶9

It is made clear that the Court has not considered the claim and contention of the petitioners on merit.

¶10

Order Date :- 2.2.2018 RKP

Ajay Kumar Asthana and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ajay Kumar Asthana and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ajay Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Thakur Biri Singh Educational Society and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. and 3 Others

Preeti Shukla Vs State of U.P.