Disposed

Rampal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2020WRIA/3853/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition on consent without expressing an opinion on merits. The court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's pending representation on regularization of services and pay scale within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide pending representation regarding regularization and pay scale within two months.

Rampal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3853 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rampal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri P.K. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of petitioner upon the post of Lekhpal at Tehsil Sahaswan, District Badaun. Further prays has been made to command the respondents to provide increment of Samayman pay scale due at 8 years and 14 years of the petitioner

¶7

So far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, he has already moved representation before the respondent no.3, which is alleged to be pending consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel have jointly submitted that direction be issued to the respondent no.3 to decide the aforesaid representation at the earliest.

¶8

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

¶9

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, on consent, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent no.3 to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy 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 petitioners 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 computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a

¶12

declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.7.2020 A. Pandey

Rampal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal 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

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jodhika Prasad Pandey Vs Ram Narayan Vishwakarma, District Inspector of School

Bilal Uddin Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Kripa Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Dhar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others