Disposed

Krishan Kumar Rawat v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023WRIA/21154/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandatory promotion based on selection committee recommendation was disposed of. Court directed respondent to issue a reasoned order within six weeks rather than admit counter-affidavit, reserving merit for the Authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to take decision via speaking order within six weeks; Clerk to submit certified copy to Authority first.

Krishan Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21154 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Krishan Kumar Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

By means of the present petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief which reads as under:-

¶7

" (I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2/Chief Engineer, Varanasi Zone, Public Works Department, Varanasi to promote the petitioner on the post of Administrative Officer in pursuance of the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 03.09.2022 (Annexure-1) within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."

¶8

The record indicates that by means of order dated 28.01.2023, the Court has passed the following order which reads as under:-

¶9

"Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. He prays for and is granted ten days' time to seek instructions and apprise the Court whether any decision has been taken by the respondent no.2, Chief Engineer regarding promotion of the petitioner in pursuance of recommendation made by selection committee on 03.09.2022 or not.

¶10

Put up this matter again on 13.02.2023 as fresh."

¶11

Today, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that some more time be granted in terms of the earlier order.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid and noticing the prayer made by the petitioner and considering that the issue regarding promotion in pursuance of the recommendations, a decision which is to be taken by the respondent no. 2 is engaging his attention. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to give further time to seek instructions or call for the counter affidavit rather is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by directing the respondent no. 2 to take a decision by means of a speaking and reasoned order intimating the petitioner preferrably within a period of six weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the Authority

¶13

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 :- 13.2.2023 Asheesh

¶17

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

Krishan Kumar Rawat v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar Rawat v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Pramila Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shiv Shodhan Dubey Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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