Disposed

Dr Bharat Ji Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023WRIA/15542/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for benefit of Assured Career Progression disposed of by permitting petitioners to submit fresh representations to respondent no.1 within two weeks for a reasoned order within three months. Court did not adjudicate merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to submit fresh representations; respondent no.1 to decide in three months via reasoned order.

Dr Bharat Ji Pandey and 2 Others Vs State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184945

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15542 of 2023 Petitioner :- Dr Bharat Ji Pandey And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghwendra Prasad Mishra,Avneesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 give benefit of Dynamic / Special Assured Career Progression to the petitioners with effect from 01.12.2008.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that despite the petitioners being entitled for the Dynamic / Special Assured Career Progression the respondents have failed to extend the benefit of the same to the petitioners.

¶9

As regard laches, reliance has been placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Gupta vs Union of India and others, AIR 1996 SC 669 to contend that whenever the matter pertains to fixation of pay the same would be continuing cause of action.

¶10

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the petitioners may be permitted to submit individual fresh representations before the respondent no.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Ayush Anubhag, 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.

¶11

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioners submit individual representations within two weeks from today before respondent no.1 then respondent no.1 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 three months from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of .

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioners.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 J. K. Dinkar

¶15

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

Dr Bharat Ji Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Bharat Ji Pandey and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hargovind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Chaubey Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hardev Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Salapa Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others