Disposed

Bhudev Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023WRIA/1631/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought mandamus directing the respondent to correct basic pay and grant arrears from FY 2016-17. The court directed the respondent authority to consider the pending representation and decide it within six weeks via a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending representation within six weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

Bhudev Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1631 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhudev Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Ojha,Garuddhwaj Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondentsState.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seek a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to correct the basic pay of the petitioner from Financial Year 201617 and provide the correct salary along with arrears.

¶8

It is submitted that the petitioner has raised the matter before the respondent No.2 by moving a representation dated 17.11.2022, a copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure No.1, however, the same has not yet been decided.

¶9

Considering the relief as claimed as well as the matter has been raised by the petitioner before the authority concerned, the Court is not inclined to call for a counter affidavit or to grant time to seek instructions as the issue in question is to be considered and decided by the authority at the first instance. Hence, this Court disposes of the petition with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned by passing a speaking and reasoned order in light of the applicable Rules and Law.

¶10

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the claim of the petitioner on merits and the respondent No.2 shall decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with applicable Rules and Law and communicate the decision so taken to the petitioner.

¶11

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Rakesh/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhudev Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhudev Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Dr. Gaurav Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priya Sahni Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Tiwari Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Rahul Singh Vs Union Of India and 5 Others

Sabir Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another