Disposed

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

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2019WRIA/19372/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes a writ petition where the petitioner complained of non-payment of salary during an earlier suspension period. The court, after noting a prior order directed the relevant authorities to decide the matter, disposed of the petition to facilitate a fresh, reasoned decision by the respondent authority within two months.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with liberty to file fresh representation and direction to respondent to decide within two months.

Akhtar Husain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19372 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Akhtar Husain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Maurya,Girish Chandra Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for State-respondents.

¶6

Petitioner was under suspension from March, 2010 to June, 2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that the salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension is not paid by the respondent authority. The petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ-A No. 12195 of 2016 (Akhtar Husain vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others ), wherein this Court directed the District Minority Welfare Officer, Maharajgaj to consider the grievance of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 17.03.2016, the District Minority Welfare Officer, Maharajgaj passed an order dated 10.05.2016 directing the Committee of Management to take a decision as to whether the period of suspension can be treated as period on duty. The Committee of Management has not taken any decision pursuant to the order passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer, Maharajgaj dated 10.05.2016.

¶8

The petitioner has submitted a representation to Respondent No. 5, copy of which is Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition, to comply with the order dated 10.05.2016 of District Minority Welfare Officer, Maharajgaj but he has not paid any heed to it.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension illegally and therefore period of suspension shall be treated as period of duty but respondent no.5 has not paid his salary illegally nor respondent no. 5 is deciding the claim of the petitioner.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.5, raising all his grievances within a period of two week from

¶11

today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, respondent No.5, shall decide the same by reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months thereafter.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.12.2019 S.K.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar Husain 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

Issues for consideration

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

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

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

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