Disposed

Bhupendra Singh Baliyan v. the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023WRIA/14541/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, with party consent, directed the respondent commanding officer to decide the petitioner's representation regarding his promotion from Sub-Inspector to Inspector within a specified timeframe without going into the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent commanding officer to decide the petitioner's representation on promotion within six weeks.

Bhupendra Singh Baliyan Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181158

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14541 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bhupendra Singh Baliyan Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Madhaw Pandey,Sr. Advocate,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶7

Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a Mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector to Inspector in accordance with the provision of Rule 5 & 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Sub Inspector and Inspectors (Civil Police) Service (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2018 from the date persons similarly circumstanced and juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner had been awarded an adverse entry which entailed the non consideration of the promotion of the petitioner but subsequently upon an appeal being filed by the petitioner, the adverse entry has been set aside by the appellate authority vide order dated 25.11.2022 and consequently it cannot be said that there was any adverse entry against the petitioner which may have entailed the respondents to not promote the petitioner.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation before the respondent No.3 which may be directed to be decided within a fixed time frame to which learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶10

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before the respondent No.3 then the respondent No.3 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶12

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Pachhere/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhupendra Singh Baliyan v. the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Singh Baliyan v. the State of U.P. and 5 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

Taibun Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sushma Yadav Mahila Constable 1411 C.P. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prince Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Priyanka Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhupendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others