Disposed

J.W. Anil Kumar and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023WRIA/1182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a writ of mandamus to add army service period to the petitioners' police tenure. The court directed the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority for a reasoned decision within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to file fresh comprehensive representation before the competent authority to decide the claim considering relevant laws and precedents.

J.W. Anil Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1182 of 2023 Petitioner :- J.W. Anil Kumar And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶4

By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to add service period of petitioners spent in army prior to the appointment in the police department.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the above regard the petitioners have already represented the matter before the competent authority on 5.2.2022 which has not been disposed of till date.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that their services rendered in the army establishment of Government of India is required to be added in the light of two judgments of this Court, firstly in the case of Hari Chand and others v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ - A No.- 36642 of 2015 on 23rd August, 2016 and secondly in the case of Bimal Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-A No.12064 of 2021 on 1st November, 2021.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in the event if a direction is issued to the competent authority for disposal of the claim of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law.

¶8

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make a fresh comprehensive representation for the purposes of relief claimed for before the competent authority, namely, respondent No.-3 within a period of three weeks from today and it is further provided that in the event any such representation is made before the respondent No.- 3, he shall look into and consider the grievance of the petitioners in the light of the relevant Law, Rule and the Act and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶9

Order Date :- 28.1.2023/D. Tamang

¶10

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

J.W. Anil Kumar and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.W. Anil Kumar and 7 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and 42 Others

Parmadish Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Kumar Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Ram Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dheeraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sahendra Singh and 3 Others Vs the State of U P and 5 Others