Disposed

Ravindra Mehta and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020WRIA/4344/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition by Sweeper employees seeking equal salary and regularisation. As the representation was pending, the petition was disposed of without merit, directing petitioners to file a fresh representation and mandate compliance within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file fresh representation; authority to decide/remediate within two months.

Ravindra Mehta and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4344 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ravindra Mehta And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra

¶2

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Sheetla Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appears for the first respondent and Sri Chandan Sharma appears for the second and third respondent.

¶4

Petitioners who are working as Sweeper in the District Judgeship Varanasi, have preferred the present writ petition with a request to issue a mandamus directing the third respondent, District Judge, Varanasi to decide the representation dated 7.1.2020 (Annexure No. 7) regarding payment of equal salary as paid to the similarly situated employees as well as their regularisation.

¶5

Sri Chandan Sharma 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.

¶6

In view of the above, on consent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally asking the petitioners to move a fresh representation before the District Judge Varanasi/third respondent ventilating their grievances within two weeks time and in case any such representation is being preferred definitely the same would be looked into, examined and remedied within two months thereafter.

¶7

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 persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶8

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶9

Order Date :- 7.7.2020 A.K.Srivastava

Ravindra Mehta and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Mehta and 5 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

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

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

Rampal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishan Dutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others