Disposed

Jeetu Mahto v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023WRIA/21508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the deduction of back wages by the Transport Department following the winding up of the Cement Corporation. The Court did not examine the merits but directed the respondent authority to decide the pending representation via a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 4 to decide pending representation via reasoned order within six weeks.

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

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21508 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Jeetu Mahto Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Priyanka Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Ms. Priyanka Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

By means of the instant petition, the grievance as raised by the petitioner is that earlier he was the employee of the Cement Corporation.

¶7

Since the said Corporation was wound up he was paid certain back wages prior to the date when the Corporation had been wound up. Later, the petitioner was appointed in the Transport Department, however, by means of impugned order, the salary/back wages which were paid to the petitioner relating to a period prior to its winding up of the Corporation has been deducted from the salary.

¶8

It is urged that the aforesaid deduction is per see bad and though the petitioner has made several representations lastly on 30.09.2019, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.6 yet no decision has been taken and in the aforesaid back drop the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court.

¶9

Considering the fact that the petitioner has already represented its matter to the Corporation, who is required to take a decision, since this involves certain factual verification of facts, accordingly this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to call the counter-afÏdavit or keep the matter pending, is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by directing the respondent no.4 to consider and decide the pending representation of

¶10

the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with applicable rules and intimate the same to the petitioner within a period of six weeks, from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Authority concerned.

¶11

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the Authority concerned will take a decision strictly in accordance with rules.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 ank

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jeetu Mahto v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu Mahto 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

Jeet Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shashi Kant Singh Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Baliram Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Gulab Ram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others