Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2020WRIA/8966/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition by a peon seeking Assured Career Promotion (ACP) grade was disposed of by a mandatory order. The respondent, Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj, was directed to decide the petitioner's representation on a speaking order within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directive to decide the petitioner's representation for ACP grade in a speaking order within four months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8966 of 2020 Petitioner :- Phoolchand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

The petitioner states that he is posted as a Peon at Community Health Center, Shankargarh, DistrictPrayagraj. He claims that he is entitled to Assured Career Promotion (ACP) grade. The same has not been disbursed to the petitioner till date. The petitioner has already made representation in this regard but same has not been decided till date.

¶5

The only contention of Sri Balbir Yadav, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Pooja Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation for grant of ACP grade may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel in his usual fairness submits that the grievance of the employee in regard to his service entitlements has to be attended to in a reasonable period of time and it should not be kept pending indefinitely.

¶7

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.

¶8

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is

¶9

remitted to the respondent no.3-Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj.

¶10

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.3-Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj, to execute the following direction:

¶11

I. The respondent no.3-Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj shall decide the representation of the petitioner for grant of ACP grade by a speaking order in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of four 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 representation and supporting documents if any.

¶12

The computer generated copy of such order shall 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.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.10.2020 Ashish Tripathi

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phoolchand 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

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

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kishan Paswan Vs Union of India and 3 Others

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