Disposed

Brijendra Kumar Shukla and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019WRIA/1169/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J. disposed of a writ petition regarding salary anomalies for teachers. The matter was directed to be examined by the District Basic Education Officer, Mahoba, within three months, with permission to apply for a fresh order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Basic Education Officer, Mahoba, to examine the matter within three months; petitioner allowed to apply for a fresh order within two weeks of receiving certified copy.

Brijendra Kumar Shukla and 7 Others Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1169 of 2019 Petitioner :- Brijendra Kumar Shukla And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶3

Heard Sri N.K. Mishra alongwith Shilpa Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 and Sri P.K. Tyagi, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 6.

¶4

It is admitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical to that of Writ A No. 25499 of 2018 decided on 4.12.2018, which is reproduced below-

¶5

"The grievance of the petitioner is that though they are appointed earlier in point of time to two other teachers who were appointed subsequently but being paid higher salary to the petitioner. This anomaly is claimed to have been corrected in the case of Jai Karan Kushwaha and 3 other teachers. The petitioner has already raised his grievances before Finance Accounts Officer, Mahoba but no action was taken and then he represented the matter Regional director Basic Education Officer, Jhansi.

¶6

Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 has no objection to the matter being considered/decided by competent authority in the matter.

¶7

In view of the above let the matter be examined in the first instance by District Basic Education Officer Basic, Jhansi, the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application along with certified copy of the order within a period of two weeks today.

¶8

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly."

¶9

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the present petition is also disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact, as stated above, let the matter be examined in the first instance by District Basic Education Officer Basic, Mahoba, the fifth respondent within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application along with certified copy of the order within a period of two weeks today.

¶11

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.1.2019/M.A.Ansari

Brijendra Kumar Shukla and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijendra Kumar Shukla and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savinay Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

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

Madhu Rani Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ghan Shyam Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kavita Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Deepa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others