Disposed¶11

Dr. Jwala Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2022WRIA/13209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (mandamus) for pension, gratuity and post-retiral dues counting ad-hoc service 13.03.1992-16.03.2005; pending representation before respondent no. 1; disposed of without deciding merits; liberty to file fresh representation within three weeks; reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks; Allahabad High Court; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; 5.9.2022; WRIT - A No. 13209 of 2022; State of U.P.; no statutes or precedents cited; no quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation within three weeks before respondent no. 1; respondent no. 1 to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks. ¶11

Dr. Jwala Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13209 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dr. Jwala Prasad Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghwendra Prasad Mishra,Avneesh Tripathi

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶5

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶6

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the pension, gratuity and other post retrial dues along with arrears by counting the service rendered by them on ad-hoc basis i.e. 13.03.1992 to 16.03.2005.

¶7

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to take the appropriate decisions in the representation submitted by the petitioner (Annexure 4), within stipulated time.".

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services rendered by the petitioner since 13.03.1992 to 16.03.2005 are not counted by opposite party during his pension fixation. In this regard, he has already filed a representation before respondent no. 1.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be suffice if the pending representation of the petitioner is directed to be decided by respondent no. 1 in a stipulated period of time.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to this innocuous prayer of the petitioner.

¶11

In view of the above and without entering into merits of the case, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation within three weeks from today before respondent no. 1. In case such representation is filed, the same shall be decided by respondent no. 1 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.9.2022 RC

¶13

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.09.06 09:52:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Jwala Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Jwala Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Devendra Giri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bharat Ji Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dr. Prakash Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others