Disposed

Narendra Kumar Dandautiya v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023WRIA/21056/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking payment of arrears and subsistence allowance. Since the relevant administrative representation was pending without orders, the Court directed the respondent to decide it via a reasoned order within four weeks without examining the case on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondent to decide pending representation within four weeks by a speaking order.

Narendra Kumar Dandautiya Vs Union of India and 3… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21056 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Dandautiya Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Sunil Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs which read as under:-

¶7

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to make payment of increment of July, 2013 and to petitioner and settle his basis pay accordingly.

¶8

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to pay the subsistence allowance as per relevant Rules to the petitioner for suspension period i.e. 22.12.2022 to 30.09.2012."

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has not been granted the increment of July, 2013 and in view thereof his basic pay has not been appropriately settled.

¶10

It is also urged that the petitioner is also entitled to subsistence allowance for the period he was placed under suspension. It is also urged that the petitioner has already escalated the matter by moving a representation, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 8, however, it is submitted that the same has yet not been decided.

¶11

It has further been pointed out that the petitioner had moved an application under the Right to Information Act and in pursuance whereof he was informed vide letter dated 11.06.2022, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 9, indicating the reason why his increment has not been paid.

¶12

A pin point query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the orders are under challenge to which he submits that since no order has been passed, accordingly, the petitioner was prevented from challenging the same.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid and noticing the aforesaid stand as well as that as per the petitioner, the representation dated 22.07.2021 is still pending, accordingly, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to call for the counter affidavit or to seek instructions from the State rather is of the opinion that ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order preferrably within a period of four weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the Authority concerned.

¶14

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the Authority concerned shall decide the same strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and law.

¶15

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Asheesh

¶17

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

Narendra Kumar Dandautiya v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Dandautiya v. Union of India 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

Lavish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Narayan Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jagdish Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Gulabdhar Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hridayanand Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others