Disposed

Gayasuddin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2020WRIA/6062/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ court allowed liberty to petitioner to file appeal with Home Guards Commandant within 15 days. Mandamus issued directing authority to decide appeal on merits as a speaking order within two months, identifying order delivery method.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appeal within 15 days; Mandamus to decide appeal on merits as speaking order within two months.

Gayasuddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6062 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Gayasuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Juned Alam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Divisional Commandant of Home Guards, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, in the array of parties as co-respondent no.5.

¶6

The services of the petitioner were terminated on 25.02.2020. The petitioner took the order of termination in appeal. However, the appeal was not filed before the competent authority.

¶7

Shri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file an appeal before the newly impleaded respondent no. 5 who is the competent authority. The petitioner undertakes to prefer an appeal before the competent appellant authority within a period of 15 days.

¶8

The only prayer made by Shri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel does not have any objection to the aforesaid prayer. However, in his usual fairness he submits that the respondent authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the appeal of the petitioner

¶10

within a reasonable period of time. The appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely.

¶11

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶12

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.5-Divisional Commandant of Home Guards, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur.

¶13

The petitioner undertakes to file an appeal before the respondent no.5-Divisional Commandant of Home Guards, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur within 15 days.

¶14

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.5-Divisional Commandant of Home Guards, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, to execute the following directions:

¶15

I. In case the petitioner files an appeal within the period of 15 days as stipulated above, the respondent no.5-Divisional Commandant of Home Guards, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, shall decide the appeal on merits without going into the question of delay.

¶16

II. The respondent no.5-Divisional Commandant of Home Guards, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, shall

¶17

decide the appeal of the petitioner by a speaking order in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of two months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad along with a fresh copy of the memo of appeal and any other supporting documents if any.

¶18

The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the petitioner (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The 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 declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.10.2020 Dhananjai

Gayasuddin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayasuddin v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Girish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Parmeshwari Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others