Disposed

Devendra Kumar v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and 8 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020WRIA/3626/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ A No. 3626 of 2020, the High Court disposed of an application for promotion based on the respondent's admission to consider the claim within three months. The court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, keeping merits open, noting pending special appeals did not bar consideration.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the petitioner's promotion claim within three months; merits kept open.

Devendra Kumar Vs U.P. Power Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3626 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Limited And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Pranjal Mehrotra,Abhishek Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶6

This petition has been preferred seeking the issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical).

¶7

On the last occasion, the Court had granted time to Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.1 and 2 to obtain instructions. Based on the instructions so provided, Sri Srivastava points out that disciplinary action had been initiated against the petitioner and in connection with which, he had been placed under suspension. That order of suspension came to be quashed pursuant to a writ petition preferred by the petitioner here. That judgment as well as an order passed on another petition preferred by the petitioner was assailed by the Corporation in terms of Special Appeal Nos.1250 and 1251 of 2018. Although those two Special Appeals remain pending on the board of this Court, admittedly no order of restraint operates on those appeals denuding the right of the petitioner to claim consideration of his case for promotion. It is also admitted before this Court that subsequent to the original order of suspension being quashed, no fresh proceedings have been initiated.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid admitted position, Sri Srivastava,

¶9

learned counsel on instructions states that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post in question shall be considered notwithstanding the pendency of the two Special Appeals aforementioned and a final decision in respect thereof communicated to the petitioner with expedition and preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶10

The respondents while considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion shall also take note of his contention that promotion would have to be affected from a retrospective date and from the date when his juniors, respondent nos.6 to 9 were accorded promotion. The respondents shall look into this aspect of the matter also while considering the claim of the petitioner and shall proceed with due notice to the respondent nos.6 to 9 and other affected persons.

¶11

This petition shall stand disposed of in light of the statement noted and recorded above. All contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 Vivek Kr.

Devendra Kumar v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and 8 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

Radhey Lal Gupta Vs Civil Judge and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ritu Singh Vs Managing Director Bank of Baroda and 3 Others

Rajendra Prasad Chamar Vs State of Up

Jagdamba Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vishnu Kumar and 29 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another