Allowed

Smt. Usha Srivastava and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2019WRIA/16515/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition at the admission stage relying on a previous judgment quashing a similar government order. The Court issued a mandamus directing the District Basic Education Officer to pay withheld salaries for July to November 2015.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing the District Basic Education Officer to pay salary for the period 1.7.2015 to November 2015 within two months.

Smt. Usha Srivastava and 3 Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16515 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Usha Srivastava And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav

¶2

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶4

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi/respondent No.3. A further prayer is also made to issue a mandamus commanding the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi/respondent No.3 to pay the salary of the petitioners which was illegally withheld for the period between 1.7.2015 to November 2015 along with increment and amended pension after retirement i.e. 31.03.2016.

¶5

Vide order dated 19.04.2017 a counter affidavit had been called for but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶6

It is admitted between the learned counsel for the parties that controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been decided in Writ A No.33360 of 2017 (Angar Yadav and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 19.08.2017. Following the judgment of Angad Yadav (supra) large number of orders have been passed by this Court.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself as no useful purpose would be served keeping this petition pending.

¶8

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the case of Angad Yadav (supra), by which the Government Order dated 02.05.2017 had already been quashed by this Court, a mandamus is issued in the present case directing the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi to make payment of salary to the petitioners for the period 1.7.2015 to November 2015 within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi.

¶9

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 2.4.2019/saqlain

Smt. Usha Srivastava and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Usha Srivastava and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

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

Buddhsen Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ziyaula Haque Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Mohd. Baqir Raza Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others