Disposed

Munnoo Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2022WRIA/18267/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ mandamus directing respondents to grant Assured Career Progression pay scales and retirement benefits. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation for specific respondents within one week, mandating a reasoned decision thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit fresh representation within one week; respondents to decide within four weeks.

Munnoo Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18267 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Munnoo Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Shankar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Uma Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pranab Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

By means of the instant petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay second Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) pay scale after completing 24 years service and third Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) pay scale after completing 26 years regular and satisfactory service of the petitioner in pursuance of the Govt.Order dated 04-05-2010 and retiral benefits due date with interest. A further prayer has been made to decide the pending representation dated 05-11-2021 in the light of the Government Order.

¶7

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines his prayer to the effect that the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation before the respondent nos.2 and 3, who may be directed to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶8

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶9

Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner may make a fresh representation before the respondent nos.2 and 3 ventilating all his grievances within a period of one week from today. In case any such representation is filed, the respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by means of a speaking and reasoned order within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶10

The writ petition stands disposed off with the aforesaid direction.

¶11

Order Date :- 2.3.2022 pks

¶12

Digitally signed by PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.03.03 10:24:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munnoo Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munnoo Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anubhav Verma Vs Principal Judge Family Court Faizabad and Ors.

Durgesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs the Uttar Pradesh Punlic Service Commission and Another

Imran Ali Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vishnu Pratap Chauhan Vs State of U P and 4 Others