Allowed

Raj Kumar v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2019WRIA/7753/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief directing respondent to decide pending representations regarding salary fixation disparity. The single-judge bench allowed the petition only at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to submit fresh grievances in return for a reasoned order within specific timelines, expressly reserving merit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation within three weeks; Respondent No. 2 to pass reasoned speaking order within three months thereafter.

Raj Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7753 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Prashant Singh Som

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

When the matter was taken up today instructions received by Sri Prashant Singh Som, learned counsel appearing for Central Government was placed before the Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers-

¶7

i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 3.7.2018 and 10.9.2018 with regard to the fixation of salary at par with similarly appointed and working as petitioner within stipulated period.

¶8

ii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to amend the pay scale of petitioner with increment and also pay as soon.

¶9

The facts in brief, as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Head Constable in the year 1993. It is contended that similarly situated employees viz. Dharampal and Mohammad Shahid Siddique were receiving basic pay scale of Rs.38,100/- and Rs.39,200/- respectively which is more than the salary received by the petitioner. In this regard petitioner has made several representations before respondent no.2D.I.G. (C.R.P.F.) Group Centre Noida, U.P., copies of which have been appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition but till date no decision has been taken.

¶10

During course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the effect that respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the petitioner is directed to submit a

¶13

fresh representation ventilating all his grievances, along with a certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 2- D.I.G. (C.R.P.F.) Group Centre Noida, U.P. within a period of three week from today. In the event such a representation is made, the respondent no. 2 is directed to pass a reasoned speaking order on the said representation within a period of three months thereafter.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶15

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concern shall pass order independently, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 19.7.2019 M.A.Ansari

Raj Kumar v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. Union of India and 3 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

Suman Lata Vs State of U P and Another

Ravindra Kumar Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Nagendra Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Raj Kishore Bhartiya Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dr. Rakesh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others