Dismissed

Rajeev Kumar and 22 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2021WRIA/6025/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking salary and allowances for the training period for Petitioners appointed as Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander in P.A.C. holding that the reliance on the prior judgment was not tenable after a subsequent judgment set aside the relevant Government Order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rajeev Kumar and 22 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6025 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar And 22 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Ojha,Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioners were appointed as Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander in P.A.C. and have been paid stipend during the service period. The petitioners in the present writ petition have claimed for salary for the training period on the strength of the judgement of this Court in the case of (Gopal Kaushik And 13 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others) in Writ-A No.32157 of 2013.

¶7

This Court on 02.07.2021 has passed the following order:-

¶8

"Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for petitioners on video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondent 1,2 and 3 is also available.

¶9

Petitioners who were appointed as Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander in P.A.C have been paid stipend during the training period.

¶10

Grievance of petitioners is that they are entitled to full salary and allowances as applicable to the Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander in P.A.C for the training period. In support of above, reliance is placed upon judgement of this Court in Writ-A No. 32157 of 2013 (Gopal Kaushik and 13 Others).

¶11

By virtue of aforesaid judgement, petitioners claim that they are also entitled to the same benefit as extended to the petitioners in above mentioned writ petition. Case of the petitioners is similar and identical to the above mentioned writ petition. As such, petitioners are also entitled to similar relief.

¶12

At this stage, learned Standing Counsel submits that he be granted short time to obtain instruction in the matter.

¶13

Accordingly, let the matter come up again as fresh on 12.7.2021."

¶14

Pursuant to the direction of this Court, Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel submits that judgement dated 04.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge declaring the Government Order dated 17th September 2002 to be ultra-virus have been

¶15

set aside by this Court in Special Appeal No.504 of 2014.

¶16

Thus, in view of the judgement of this Court in Special Appeal No.504 of 2014, the claim of petitioners for grant of salary for training period on the strength of judgement of this Court in the case of Gopal Kaushik (supra) is not tenable in law.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.7.2021 Sattyarth

Rajeev Kumar and 22 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar and 22 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Khan Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Shiwani Bandhu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Anand Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghvendra Satyarthi Vs the Union of India and 3 Others