Disposed

Shamim Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021WRIC/936/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to the Director, Panchayati Raj, to decide the petitioner's representation. The Court ordered the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, assuring the authority will decide it within two weeks citing Vishnu Dev Upadhyay case.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Director, Panchayati Raj; the authority to decide it within two weeks.

Shamim Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 936 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shamim Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav,Tawvab Ahmed Khan

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction to the respondents no.2/Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow to decide his representation dated 17.11.2020 after providing opportunity of hearing.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 11.02.2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ - C No. 68435 of 2014 ( Vishnu Dev Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others ) and as such, the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2020 may be decided in the light of the aforesaid judgement.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the legal and factual aspect of the matter.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the petitioner makes a fresh representation to the Director, Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow for ventilating his grievance within two weeks' from today, the authority concerned would redress the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgment passed in Vishnu Dev Upadhyay's case (supra) in further two weeks time.

¶10

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶11

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the

¶12

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

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Ishan

Shamim Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamim Ahmad 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatim Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saroj Vs Consumer Forum and 2 Others

Gram Panchayat Bharehta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Hriday Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Siya Rani Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Zulfiqar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others