Disposed

Raghunath Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2020WRIA/2919/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought salary for jail period and increments during suspension, along with consideration of pending representations. The High Court directed the third respondent to examine the petitioner's grievance, pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within the specified time.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent to look into the petitioner's grievance and pass an appropriate order on the representation within two months.

Raghunath Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2919 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Raghunath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akshaya Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Prakash Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Petitioner is before this Court with a request commanding the respondents to pay the salary of period of jail (08.06.2010 to 01.09.2010) and add increment of the years i.e. 2010, 2011 and 2012 of the petitioner during suspension period and also to direct the respondent authority to decide the representation and reminder of the petitioner dated 24.11.2017 and 17.7.2019 (Annexure No. 3 and 4 to the writ petition) within stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner has already made a detailed representation to the respondent no. 3 on 24.11.2017, which is pending consideration.

¶8

Sri K.R.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel very fairly that in case any such representation is still pending and has not been disposed of, the same will be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue this writ petition is disposed of finally asking the third respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of this order before him.

¶10

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶11

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the

¶12

official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.8.2020 A.K.Srivastava

Raghunath Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Singh 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

Shiv Poojan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M, Baba Gaya Das Technical Higher Secondary School Society and Another Vs Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits

Snehidheer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yatendra Singh Vs Radhey Shyam Yadav, General Manager, Jalkal Vibhag and Another

Vandana Kumari and Another Vs Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and 2 Others

Vasdev Yadav Vs Bhanu Chandra Goswami, D.M.