Dismissed

Samarjeet Bhargav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 May 2022WRIA/4226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition where the petitioner sought instruction to provide subsistence allowance during suspension and to conclude disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the allowance prayer was infructuous as it was already paid and dismissed the disposal request due to the petitioner's non-cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; prayer for subsistence allowance deemed infructuous as already paid; prayer to conclude disciplinary proceedings denied due to petitioner's non-cooperation.

Samarjeet Bhargav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4226 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Samarjeet Bhargav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar,Mata Achal Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Vinay Mishra Advocate holding of Mr. M. A. Mishra, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing respondents 1, 2 and 3.

¶6

Petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent- 2, Senior Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Naini, Prayagraj to provide subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period of suspension i.e. from 18.12.2019 to 01.02.2021 and to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against petitioner.

¶7

Present writ petitioner came up for admission on 25.04.2022 and this Court passed the following order:

¶8

" Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was suspended on 18.12.2019, however, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 01.02.2021 but the salary of the suspension period has not been paid to the petitioner.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶10

Put up as fresh on 25.04.2022.

¶11

Order Date :- 8.4.2022 "

¶12

Pursuant to order dated dated 08.04.2022, the learned standing counsel representing respondents has received instructions in the matter. Same have been placed before Court

¶13

and are taken on record. Learned standing counsel on the basis of instructions received by him contends that petitioner has already been paid the subsistence allowance for the period 18.12.2019 to 01.02.2021.

¶14

In view of above, it is thus urged by learned standing counsel that prayer no.1 as prayed for by petitioner has not been rendered infructuous. It is then contended that petitioner himself is not co-operating in the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and therefore, the the same could not be concluded.

¶15

Perusal of the pleadings raised by petitioner in this writ petition goes to show that except for the averments made in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the writ petition, no factual foundation has been laid in the writ petition to establish that the delay in conclusion of the departmental proceedings is not attributable to petitioner.

¶16

In view of above, present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed..

¶17

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 20.5.2022 YK

¶19

Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.05.25 11:02:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Samarjeet Bhargav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samarjeet Bhargav v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Deepak Vs the State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sanjay Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sundar Lal Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raj Kapoor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Pal Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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