Disposed

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

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023WRIA/15518/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to include his name in the list for promotion and training as Health Supervisor. Court directed petitioner to submit fresh representation within one week. Respondent No. 2 to decide within four weeks via reasoned order. Pet not to file further.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation; Respondent No. 2 directed to decide within four weeks via reasoned order.

Prince Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179100

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15518 of 2023 Petitioner :- Prince Kumar Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Nath Bhakta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to add / indicate the name of the petitioner in the list for promotion and training for six months for the post of Health Supervisor.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite the petitioner having completed 10 years of service neither he has been sent for training by the competent authority nor his name has been mentioned in the list prepared for the said purpose.

¶9

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 i.e. Director, General Family Welfare U.P., Lucknow which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection.

¶10

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within one week from today before respondent no.2 then respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the relevant rules within a further period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶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 claim set forth by the petitioner.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.9.2023 J. K. Dinkar

¶14

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Kumar Maurya 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

Rakesh Bharadwaj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sri Krishna Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Shiv Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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

Chandrajeet Kumar Gond Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another