Disposed

Avanish Tripathi and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2022WRIA/7502/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition seeking mandamus to add Army service to Police tenure and for salary re-fixation was disposed of by directing petitioners to submit individual representations supported by documentary evidence to the Deputy IGP (Establishment) for a reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to submit individual representations with documents to Deputy IGP (Establishment) for a reasoned decision within two months.

Avanish Tripathi and 11 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7502 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Avanish Tripathi And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardhan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Janardan Yadav, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for following relief:-

¶7

"(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to add the service period of Army in the present service of the petitioners in U.P. Police Department accordance with law.

¶8

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-fix the salary of the petitioners after adding the previous services rendered by the petitioners in Army. ..."

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were initially working in Indian Army and subsequently, they have been appointed in Police Department of the State of U.P. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, the services rendered by the petitioners in Indian Army is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of their salary and other benefits. For the said grievances, they have made representations before the authority concerned but no decision has been taken thereon till date. Hence the present writ petition.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that petitioners may make a fresh representation individually, ventilating all their grievances, supported by such documents, as they may be advised, before respondent no.3, i.e. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) Uttar Pradesh Police Headquarter, Allahabad/Lucknow, within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within two months thereafter.

¶11

Order Date :- 17.5.2022/HSM

¶12

Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.08.08 11:36:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Avanish Tripathi and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avanish Tripathi and 11 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Cdr Akhilesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganga Prasad Javan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Seema Sarowar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Babita Rani Kaushik Vs the State of U P and 6 Others