Disposed

Aditya Kumar Misra v. Dir. General of Police Central Reserve Police and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2023WRIA/1589/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a filed and disposed writ petition for parity of service benefits, the court recorded that the High Court had previously allowed the petitioner's substantive claim regarding service benefits and implementation by the State. Consequently, the current petition, being subjudice/following, stands disposed of without further order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of due to the implementation of the previous order allowing service benefits.

Aditya Kumar Misra Vs Dir. General of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:82423

¶2

Court No. - 25

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1589 of 2004

¶4

Petitioner :- Aditya Kumar Misra

¶5

Respondent :- Dir. General Of Police Central Reserve Police And 3 Ors.

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.Verma

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- B.B.Saxena,C.S.C.,Sudhanshu Chauhan

¶8

Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue an order of posting in favour of the petitioner and give all consequential service benefits from the date of posting of similarly situated persons.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents submits that the petitioner was appointed and orders were also issued and subsequently, he filed one more writ petition bearing Service Single No. 5262 of 2013 seeking a mandamus commanding opposite party to parity of pay scale and other service benefits paid to similar situated persons, who were recruited in the same batch treating him to continue his service w.e.f. 17.4.2001 on the basis of the appointment order dated 3.4.2001.

¶11

Considering the submissions and merits of the case, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by order dated 15.3.2019. Relevant portion of the said order, is as under:

¶12

"In view of the long service of 18 years of the petitioner having been rendered by the petitioner as of now, I am of the view that the medical unfitness report against the petitioner as of today is of no consequence whatsoever and deserves to be ignored particularly in view of the fact that subsequent to the said report, the petitioner has successfully completed the strenuous training of the Central Reserve Police Force and has also put in a long service without any complaint against him.

¶13

In view of the fact that the appointment of the petitioner relates to the advertisement issued in year 2000, which fact has not been denied by the opposite parties, I find that the petitioner is also entitled to be granted the same service benefits as are admissible to other persons appointed in the force in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement issued in the year 2000.

¶14

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to all the service benefits of similarly situated persons recruited by the Central Reserve Police Force in pursuance of the said advertisement issued in the year 2000."

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that the said order was implemented by the State.

¶16

In the view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

(Donadi Ramesh, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 14.12.2023 Noman

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aditya Kumar Misra v. Dir. General of Police Central Reserve Police and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Kumar Misra v. Dir. General of Police Central Reserve Police and 3 Ors.

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

Akhilesh Chandra Pandey Vs Selection Committee, Regional Joint Director of Education Prayagraj and 3 Others

Vakil Chand Jain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lakshmi Chand Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy. Sahkarita Vibhag Lucknow and 4 Others

Raj Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P.Thr.Its Prin Secy Home and 3 Ors.

Hari Ram Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Sec. Education and 3 Ors.