Disposed

Brij Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Irrigation and Water Resourse) Lko. and 2 Othes

Allahabad HC15 Jun 2022/3813/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner appointed on compassionate basis failed a typing test. Court directed Superintending Engineer to decide on petitioner's pending representation before acting on the executive engineer's letter and granted liberty to submit a fresh plea.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit a fresh representation; Superintending Engineer directed to decide it before taking action.

Brij Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3813 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Brij Raj

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Irrigation And Water Resourse) Lko. And 2 Othes Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R.K.Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amitabh Rai, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for all the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant by means of an order dated 28.05.2018 on compassionate basis. A typing test was taken on 06.05.2022 in which he could not attain the desired speed. The submission of the petitioner is that it happened because the petitioner was not well.

¶8

on 26.05.2022, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Superintending Engineer, 12, Irrigation Division, Ganga Sichai Bhawan, Telibag, Lucknow, which is pending. On 31.05.2022, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, 1st, Lucknow has sent a letter to the Superintending Engineer stating that the petitioner could not achieve the desired speed and suitable action may be taken as per the Rules.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that a direction be issued to the Superintending Engineer to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 26.05.2022 before taking any action in furtherance of the letter dated 31.05.2022 sent by the Executive Engineer.

¶10

Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, to secure the ends of justice,

¶11

a liberty is given to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Superintending Engineer concerned taking all the pleas available to him. In case such a representation is submitted within a period of one week from today, the Superintending Engineer shall decide the same before taking any action on the representation.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.6.2022 Ashish pd.

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.06.15 20:25:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brij Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Irrigation and Water Resourse) Lko. and 2 Othes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Irrigation and Water Resourse) Lko. and 2 Othes

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

Subedar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Safiya Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. of the Stamp and Registration Deptt. Lko. and Others

Yogendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayti Raj Lko. and 7 Others

Ram Kishore Rajvanshi and Another Vs Deputy Registrar,Firms Socities and Chits Lko. and 4 Others

Sumitra Devi Vs Sub-Divisinal Magistrate Colonelganj Distt. Gonda and Others

Ram Prakash Tiwari Vs District Magistrate Ayodhya and 2 Others