Disposed

Purusottam Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2018WRIA/7108/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking salary and benefits for a post of Clerk. The court directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's claim via a reasoned order within four months of receiving the representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authority to decide the petitioner's claim for salary and benefits within four months of receiving the representation.

Purusottam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7108 of 2006

¶3

Petitioner :- Purusottam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pt. Dharm Narain Dubey,D.N. Pandey,Shiv Nath Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.P. Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

¶6

"(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner with effect from April, 2004 till date regularly and continuously in accordance with law on the post of Clerk with all its consequential benefits and to permit him to join on his post either in the Society namely, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Wakalpur, Block-Shikohabad, District-Firozabad or in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Sarhupur, District-Firozabad."

¶7

Sri R.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing the first prayer. He confines his submissions for grant of second prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled to his salary with effect from 2004 since has been working against the post of Accountant in the respondent No.4-Society. He submits that the word "clerk" is transcribed incorrectly in the prayer clause. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the representation for grant of salary and other consequential benefits have already been made. He fairly concedes that the representation has been submitted to an authority which is not competent.

¶8

No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending at this stage. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.

¶9

It is open to the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No.2 for grant of

¶10

salary and other consequential benefits, to which the petitioner claims to be entitled. The respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation.

¶11

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions made in the writ petition nor it has adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so after independent application of mind and strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 28.8.2018 Ashish Tripathi

Purusottam Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purusottam Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upendra Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kabiruddin Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Jai Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Kalawati Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sanjay Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others