Disposed

Jagdeesh Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2023WRIA/9126/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposed of a writ petition seeking selection grade pay. The High Court directed the petitioner to approach the Basic Education Officer with proper representation instead of granting interim relief, reserving the merits for the designated authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to prefer comprehensive representation before the Basic Education Officer, District Chitrakoot, for consideration within three months.

Jagdeesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133098

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9126 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Jagdeesh Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pal,D.K.Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Khare

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri D.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Rajesh Khare, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5.

¶7

The case of the writ petitioner as portrayed in the present petition is that he was initially appointed on 29.2.1996 as Assistant Teacher and thereafter on account of his unblemished service he was accorded promotion on 31.7.2009 as Headmaster and he assumed the charge on 8.8.2009 in Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya Dhaurahi Mafi Block and District Chitrakoot.

¶8

As per the pleadings set forth in the writ petition the petitioner is entitled to selection grade pay after completion of 10 years of service and thus according to the writ petitioner he is entitled for the same w.e.f.8.8.2019 but he has not been granted the same despite the fact that there is nothing adverse against him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that he has been representing his cause before the respondent but no fruitful action has been taken, thus for.

¶10

The prayer in the present writ petition is for a direction to the third respondent, Basic Education Officer, District Chitrakoot to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petition.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Rajesh Khare, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submit that the issue as to whether the writ petition is entitled to the selection grade pay after completion of 10 years service is a issue which is to be accorded consideration at the first instance by the third respondent, Basic Education Officer, District Chitrakoot and thus according to them no fruitful purpose will be solved in detaining the writ petition on board and the writ petitioner be directed to approach the third respondent in this regard.

¶12

Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them the writ petition is being disposed off with a direction to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self attested copy of the writ petition before the third respondent who shall accord consideration to the same within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

¶13

Needless to point out that the writ petition is being decided on an ex parte version without seeking any response from the respondents thus passing of this order may not be construed to be an expression this Court has gone into the merits of the matter and further the third respondent before finalizing the claim of the writ petitioner shall go into the issue with regard to the entitlement of the writ petitioner.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off .

¶15

Order Date :- 6.7.2023 piyush

¶16

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

Jagdeesh Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdeesh Prasad 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

Ram Sagar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Prateek Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashutosh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Ram Sahay Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nandini Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others