Disposed

Raj Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2023WRIA/16407/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Review Officer in the High Court, claimed the second Assured Career Progression Scheme benefit denied earlier due to a pending inquiry. The court directed the respondent to consider the claim and ancillary benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's claim for 2nd ACP benefit and dispose of it within three months.

Raj Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187865

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16407 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

Petitioner, who is currently working as Review Officer in the office of Government Advocate, High Court Allahabad, claims second time benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme called as '2nd ACP' which would make him entitle to grade pay of Rs.6600/- and it is submitted that petitioner is entitled for the said grade pay with effect from 1st February, 2022 on account of completing requisite period of service and so he should have been granted the said benefit.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier vide an order dated 13th September, 2022 an enquiry was instituted in the year 2013 regarding claims of leave travel concession by various employees including the petitioner. Petitioner like other employees was issued with a show cause notice and thereafter a detailed report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, namely, Additional Advocate General on 21st December, 2022.

¶9

In the total circumspect of the case as detailed out in the said report, Advocate General, U.P. has decided to drop the proceedings and accordingly an order was passed on 24th July, 2023 dropping the proceedings.

¶10

In such above view of the matter, now petitioner claims that said benefit to which he was entitled in the year 2022, namely, the 2nd ACP should be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already raised his claim before the respondent No.- 2 and the reminder letters were also made being last served upon on 15th May, 2023 in the office of the respondent No.- 2. He, therefore, claims that his claim may now be considered and

¶11

disposed of strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel does not have objection to the above request to the extent that his claim may be considered strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.- 2 to look into and consider the claim of the petitioner regarding 2nd ACP benefit and such other ancillary benefits as he has raised in his representation and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶14

Order Date :- 27.9.2023 Atmesh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ved Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahaveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kavish Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Lal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anjali Goswami Vs the Secretary, U P Public Service Commission and Another

Chhatrapal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others