Disposed

Sadabriksh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2023WRIC/39301/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition seeking payment for work awarded to the petitioner. The court directed the authority to re-examine the claim after a fresh application with an affidavit within three months, ensuring due process before any payment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to re-examine petitioner's claim with a reasoned order within three months after fresh application supported by personal affidavit and documents.

Sadabriksh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238370-DB

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39301 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sadabriksh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Pandey,Ashish Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶6

Pursuant to the last order, instructions have been received by learned Standing Counsel. It is thus stated that though it is true that the petitioner was awarded the work for which he has raised the claim of Rs. 9,32,138.80, an equal amount was withdrawn fraudulently by Ravindra Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Ballia. An inquiry has been instituted in that regard. It is pending.

¶7

At present, written instructions do not appear to indicate that the petitioner had participated in that fraud or that no payment is due to the petitioner.

¶8

In view of the above, in the first place, the claim made by the petitioner is substantiated. It merits consideration. Second, the facts require to be ascertained before any payment may be made to the petitioner. No useful purpose may be served in keeping this petition pending or calling for any counter affidavit at this stage.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction, in case the petitioner makes a fresh and proper claim before the respondent no. 3 supported by his personal affidavit annexing thereto all documents on which the petitioner may seek to rely, that

¶10

claim may be examined on its own strength by the proper authority and appropriate reasoned order may be passed within a period of three months from the date of first compliance shown by the petitioner.

¶11

It is further provided, if the claim thus made by the petitioner is proposed to be rejected, a show cause notice may be issued to the petitioner disclosing the points on which adverse action is proposed to be taken and the reasoned order may be passed after hearing the petitioner.

¶12

Any amount found due and payable to the petitioner may be paid out to him within a period of three months from the date of order being passed by the respondent no. 3 in compliance of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.12.2023 SA

¶14

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)

¶15

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

Sadabriksh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadabriksh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Bashisht Narayan Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rajmala Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gayatri Devi and 46 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Sovereign Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashok Kumar Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Satish Sharma @ Satish Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others