Disposed

Shiva Nand Yadav and 33 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2024/10454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order corrects typographical errors in paragraph Nos. 7 to 10 of a judgment dated 14.11.2024 regarding salary claims for officiating teachers. The court grants liberty to petitioners to raise grievances before the District Basic Education Officer, referencing a prior judgment, and disposes of the petition on that basis.

What did the court decide?

Correction application allowed; operative paragraphs corrected; liberty granted to approach District authority without adjudication on merits; petition disposed of.

Shiva Nand Yadav and 33 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76860

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10454 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shiva Nand Yadav And 33 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Mangal Singh,Ankit Kumar Pandey,Rajendra Prasad Tripathi,Yogendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Uday Veer Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

(I.A. No.2 of 2024)

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Shri Sarvesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4 and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

¶9

This is an application for correction of the order dated 14.11.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to typographical error, paragraph Nos.7 to 10 of the order dated 14.11.2024 have been erroneously typed. The said error is admitted by the learned counsels for the respondents.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid, the paragraphs No.7 to 10 of the order dated 14.11.2024 be read as under:

¶12

"7. The instant petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for commencement of payment of salary on the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of Primary/Upper Primary/Composite School along with all consequential benefits since petitioners are officiating on aforesaid post.

¶13

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in this regard liberty be granted to them to raise their grievance before the respondent No.3.

¶14

9. It is submitted that petitioners' case is covered by judgment rendered in Writ A No.18228 of 2022, Tripurari Dubey & Anr. versus State of U.P. & Ors.

¶15

10. Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioners, without entering into the merits of the case and particularly since adjudication of petitioners' grievance would entail factual aspects, liberty is granted to petitioners to file fresh individual representation before opposite party no.3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Gonda who is directed to take a final decision in the light of aforesaid judgment, in case the same is applicable, within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority along with fresh representation(s)."

¶16

Accordingly, the correction application is allowed. The order dated 14.11.2024 stands corrected / modified.

¶17

With the aforesaid correction / modification, the petition also stands disposed of.

¶18

This order shall form part of the order dated 14.11.2024.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 S. Shivhare

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiva Nand Yadav and 33 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Nand Yadav and 33 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Others

Praveen Kumar Saxena Vs Aryavark Bank Thru. Chairman Cum M.D. Lko.and Ors.

Raqeeb Ahmad Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dr. Neeraj Jain Vs University of Lucknow Thru. Registrar and Ors.

Km. Farha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Lko. and Ors.

Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas and Pushtahar Govt. Lko and 6 Others