Allowed

Rajoo Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2021WRIA/1511/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the representation regarding a denied yearly increment as a matter for the fact-finding authority but, issuing a writ of mandamus, directed the respondent authority to decide the representation via a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus commanding the Basic Education Officer to decide the representation for the grant of a yearly increment within six weeks by a speaking order.

Rajoo Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1511 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rajoo Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Prasad,Ravindra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶5

Petitioner claims for grant of yearly increment of the year 2020-21 to which he is entitled but was denied on account of clerical error. The petitioner has made a representation in this regard. The representation has not been decided till date.

¶6

The only prayer made by Sri Ravindra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that representation of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶7

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that denial of increment is a matter of fact which has to be considered by the competent authority in the first instance. However he fairly submits that the State being a model employer is under an obligation of law to decide the representation of the petitioner within a reasonable period of time.

¶8

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.

¶9

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3- Basic Education Officer, District Chitrakoot.

¶10

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 3- Basic Education Officer, District Chitrakoot, to execute the following direction:

¶11

The respondent no. 3- Basic Education Officer, District Chitrakoot, shall decide the representation of the petitioner for grant of yearly increment of the year 2020-21, by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, along with a copy of fresh representation.

¶12

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. 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 declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Pravin

Rajoo Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajoo Mishra 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

Syeda Rukhsar Mariyam Rizvi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

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

Ramnaresh Singh Chandel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vandana Dwivedi Vs State of U P and 2 Others