Allowed

Rajendra Pal v. State of U P and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2018WRIA/8470/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an order rejecting a petitioner's representation against a service record adverse entry due to lack of reasoning. The court held promotion claims were invalidly evaluated during pendency of pending representation and remitted matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.4.2018 rejected is quashed; matter remitted for fresh decision; promotion claim to be considered within one month.

Rajendra Pal Vs State of U P and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8470 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajendra Pal Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Kumar Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Head Assistant has not been considered apparently on the ground that an adverse entry existed in the service records. This petition accordingly was filed challenging the order on the ground that a representation made against the adverse entry was pending, and therefore, in view of the provisions contained under the U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation Against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995 adverse entry ought not to have been considered for denying petitioner's claim for promotion. During pendency of the writ petition representation of the petitioner has also been rejected. The order rejecting representation has also been challenged by way of amendment, which has been allowed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶7

The short ground on which the order rejecting petitioner's representation against the adverse entry is challenged is that the order contains absolutely no reason for rejecting petitioner's representation. The order merely records that the competent authority has objected to the prayer made by the petitioner. Apart from noticing the aforesaid fact, there is no consideration of petitioner's claim on merits. The specific reply submitted by the petitioner has also not been considered. It is otherwise submitted that petitioner's superior under whom he was working had already proposed excellent entry to the petitioner, but without recording any reasons for disagreement the order impugned has been passed.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel although has made various submissions but does not dispute that the order rejecting petitioner's representation against adverse entry dated 16.4.2018 lacks any reason.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances, the order dated 16.4.2018 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to take a fresh decision, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the

¶10

date of presentation of certified copy of this order. It is also provided that since on the date of consideration of petitioner's claim for promotion his representation against the adverse entry was pending consideration, therefore, such material ought not to have been taken note of for the purposes of consideration of claim for promotion by virtue of rule 5 of the Rules of 1995. Claim of petitioner for promotion shall thus be considered keeping in view the provisions contained under Rules of 1995, within a further period of one month, thereafter.

¶11

Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.7.2018 Ashok Kr.

Rajendra Pal v. State of U P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Pal v. State of U P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Singh Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Smt. Shahin Bi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Azmat Ali Vs S.D.O. and Others

Brij Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others