Disposed

Devendra Giri v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2022WRIA/13064/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking regularization of services as a Collection Amin, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent for consideration within three weeks. The petition was disposed of following the agreement of the respondent's counsel to decide the representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to submit a fresh representation within three weeks; respondent to decide within two weeks in a reasoned order.

Devendra Giri Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13064 of 2022 Petitioner :- Devendra Giri Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin w.e.f .08.04.2022, the date from which services of his junior namely, Nafis Ahmad has been regularized and same benefit may also be given to him.

¶5

Learned Standing Counsel has disputed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that Nafis Ahmad is not junior than the petitioner and no benefit can accrue to the petitioner on account of regularization, who is senior than the petitioner.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the seniority list and submits that 230 working days of the petitioner is not included in 1416 working days and therefore, by mischief, he has been denied regularization by placing Nafis Ahmad in the seniority list arbitrary, although 230 working days being counted to his credit, he would be senior to Nafis Ahmad.

¶7

After arguing for some time, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it will be suffice if the respondent no.2 is directed to decide his pending representation appended as Annexure No.9 to the present writ petition dated 04.06.2019 to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶8

In view of the above, liberty is given to the petitioner to move a fresh representation to respondent no.2 within three weeks from today. In case such a representation is made within the stipulated time, the same shall be decided by respondent no.2 in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of two weeks.

¶9

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 2.9.2022 T.S.

¶11

Digitally signed by TRIBHUWAN SINGH Date: 2022.09.02 15:53:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Giri v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Giri v. State of U.P. and Another

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

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

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

Smt. Ram Dulari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prashant Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Vishwas Nigam Vs Union Of India and 3 Others