Disposed

Ramesh Chandra Vishwakarma and 8 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022WRIA/20147/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the non-release of funds for the honorarium scheme of non-teaching faculty at the University of Allahabad. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to take a reasoned decision on the faculty's grievance within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 6 to take a reasoned decision on the petitioners' claim within three months of receiving their representation.

Ramesh Chandra Vishwakarma and 8 Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20147 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Vishwakarma And 8 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Om Prakash Kannaujia

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Abrar Ahmad,Kshitij Shailendra

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

On oral prayer, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead, Secretary Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment as party respondent No. 6, during the course of the day.

¶7

Heard Sri Om Prakash Kannaujia learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abrar Ahmad learned counsel for the Union respondent, Ms. Akansha Mishra learned counsel holding brief of learned counsel for the University and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶8

Petitioners are non teaching faculty who had been engaged on honorarium basis at All India Service Pre-Examination Training Centre run by the University of Allahabad, Prayagraj under a scheme formulated by respondent No. 6. It appears, no fund has been released for that scheme since 2013-14.

¶9

Considering the hardship claimed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, the Registrar of the University of Allahabad vide communication dated 15.3.2021 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) wrote to respondent No. 6 to consider the hardship being claimed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons and take and communicate appropriate decision in that regard.

¶10

Upon query made, learned counsel for the University states, no

¶11

communication has been received from respondent No. 6, till date in reply to the letter written by the Registrar of the University dated 15.3.2021.

¶12

In view of the above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. Whatever decision is to be made has primarily to be made by respondent No. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case petitioners file their collective representation before respondent No. 6 supported by appropriate personal affidavit of atleast one of the petitioners annexing thereto all relevant documents, the said respondent shall take appropriate reasoned decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.12.2022 Faraz

¶14

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.14 10:38:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh Chandra Vishwakarma and 8 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Vishwakarma and 8 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

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

Sonal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Namwar Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rama Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Deep Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

C/M Trigunanand Janta Inter College and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others