Disposed

Subhash Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2021WRIA/9116/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of the writ petition directed against respondents for non-release of honorarium and non-decision of representation. Court did not enter into merits but directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation, obligating Respondent 5 to decide expeditiously thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file comprehensive representation; respondent to decide expeditiously with reasoned order.

Subhash Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9116 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Prasad,Ravindra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶6

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.5 (Project Director, District Rural Development Agency Chitrakoot) to release the honorarium since 01.12.2018 to till date to the petitioner for his work done as dispatcher, perform in the office of respondent no.5.

¶7

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.5 (Project Director, District Rural Development Agency Chitrakoot) to decide the representation of the petitioner pending before him."

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the honorarium for the work done by the petitioner in the office of respondent no.5 has remained unpaid since 1.12.2018 till the date of presentation of the writ petition (i.e. September, 2020).

¶9

Learned Standing counsel, however, invited attention of the Court to the representation dated 13.5.2019 moved by the petitioner wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has not been allowed to work from 1.5.2019.

¶10

A writ petition no.27105 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed as infructuous on 20.5.2019 on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause no longer survived.

¶11

Considering the same and perused the record, it seems that there is some dispute with regard to the working of the petitioner on the post of dispatcher in the office of respondent no.5.

¶12

For the above, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is being disposed of with the following directions:-

¶13

(i) the petitioner shall move a comprehensive representation alongwith the copy of this order within a period of three weeks

¶14

from today.

¶15

(ii) In case such representation is filed, the respondent no.5 shall be under obligation to take an expeditious decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks, thereafter.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Harshita

Subhash Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Mishrilal@ Suggan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Baldev Kumar and Another Vs Union of India

Sitaram Vs Union of India

Umanath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Prahalad Narayan and Another Vs Divisional Director Social Forestry and 2 Others

Sooraj Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another