Allowed

Subhash Chand v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2019WRIA/10238/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the illegal rejection of selection and promotional grade pay, the Court held that the dispute was covered by a prior judgment. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 09.02.2017 was set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the grant of selection and promotional grade pay within one month.

Subhash Chand Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10238 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Subhash Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naresh Chandra Tripahti,Suchita Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶7

The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Shri Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Dawathawa, District Meerut. The claim of the petitioner for selection grade has been illegally rejected by order dated 09.02.2017, Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

¶8

So far as relief nos.1 and 2 in the prayer clause is concerned, the same is not pressed by the petitioner and this Court by order dated 11.07.2019 granted liberty to the petitioner to file separate writ petition in respect of prayer nos.1 and 2. The present writ petition is confined to the prayer nos.3 & 4.

¶9

The petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:-

¶10

"iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the part of the order dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure no.5) passed by District Inspector of Schools, by which the respondent no.2 has reviewed the earlier order dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure no.4) and directed the payment of selection grade pay to the petitioner with effect from 22.03.2016 in place of payment from 15.06.2005.

¶11

iv. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to pay the selection grade pay of salary to the petitioner with effect from 15.06.2005 and with the further order for payment of promotional grade pay of salary to the petitioner with effect from 15.06.2017 with all consequential benefits and arrear of amount of salary accrued upon the petitioner on account of difference on grant pay to the petitioner with effect from 15.06.2005 and 15.06.2017 respectively with grant of all consequential benefits to the petitioner."

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that denial to the selection grade and promotional grade to the petitioner on the ground that he has not completed 10 years and 12 years of satisfactory service for grant of selection and promotional grade is wrong and against the record. He further contends that the controversy in the present case is covered by the judgement of

¶13

this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.340 of 2019.

¶14

On the said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek instruction as to whether the controversy involved in the present petition is covered by the judgement of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.340 of 2019.

¶15

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on instructions submits that controversy in present case is covered by judgement in Special Appeal Defective No.340 of 2019.

¶16

Since the dispute is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.340 of 2019, therefore, order dated 09.02.2017, Annexure 5 to the writ petition, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and respondent no.2 is directed to consider the grant of selection grade as well as promotional grade to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order in the light of judgement in Special Appeal Defective No.340 of 2019.

¶17

It is needless to say that if claim of the petitioner is found correct, the respondents shall ensure the payment of all dues to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Sattyarth

Subhash Chand v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chand v. State of U.P.and 3 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

Rashmi Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mrs. Geeta Satsangi Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Uttar Pradesh Anusuchit Jati/Janjati Basic Shikshan Kalyan Association, Varanasi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhtar Husain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others