Disposed

Sanjay Kumar Dubey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2020WRIA/10489/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition but directed the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, to examine the petitioners' grievances regarding repatriation and non-payment of salary within two months.

What did the court decide?

Refreshing the writ petition to the District Magistrate to look into grievances and decide within two months, allowing two weeks for a fresh representation on salary.

Sanjay Kumar Dubey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10489 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Shukla,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

The grievance of the petitioners is that though they were attached with the Department of Land Acquisition on the newly created post therein until the appointments were made on such newly created posts through outsourcing and yet for the last one and half year no repatriation has taken place in respect of the petitioners.

¶7

In this regard the petitioners have made representation in the past on 11.10.2019 and the last being on 07.01.2020 but no decision has been taken by the District Magistrate. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the instructions received from his clients, the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 have also not been paid salary for the last two months.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel submits that at this stage matter can be better examined by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj and an appropriate direction can be issued to the appropriate authority i.e. District Magistrate, Prayagraj to take a decision in the matter of grievance of the petitioners as has been discussed herein above.

¶9

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 3 to look into the grievance of the petitioners as has been raised in the representations noted herein above in this order and the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 are also permitted to make such other representation with regard to non payment of salary as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 3 & 4, by means of a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today along with the copy of this order. The District Magistrate, Prayagraj shall take an appropriate decision in the matter and shall dispose of the pending representations as well as representation for payment of salary, if any made, as directed herein above, within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶10

The copy of the order available on official website of this Court

¶11

shall be treated to be genuine one, however, as and when the certified copy of the order is issued, the same shall also be submitted before the competent authority.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.12.2020 IrfanUddin

Sanjay Kumar Dubey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Dubey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Indrawati Vs Board of Revenue and 6 Others

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohitash Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Bhai Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Geeta Rai Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others