Disposed

Vishal Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024/11199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandatory appointment on compassionate grounds following his father's death in harness. Court directed respondents to decide a fresh representation within a specified timeframe without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a fresh representation within two weeks; respondent to decide within eight weeks.

Vishal Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78454

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11199 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vishal Bharti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Misra,Jyoti Tripathi,Shyama Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,O.P. Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, and Sri Vivek Shukla holding brief of Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶7

With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.

¶8

Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as per his qualification on suitable post under Dying in Harness Rules.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's father was working as Safai Karmchari/Acting Safai Havaldar under the respondents who died in harness on 10.10.2023. Despite the petitioner being perfectly eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground and he having applied for his appointment but no final decision has been taken in the matter till date.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.2 which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has no objection.

¶11

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before respondent no.2 then respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 A. Katiyar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishal Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Sagar vs Preeti Singh Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehshil Sirauli Gauspur Dist. Barabanki and Another

Satya Narayan Shukla and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. (Finance Deptt) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Chandra Dev Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Khadi Evam Gramudyog U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Laut Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Sugar Industries Lko. and 3 Others

R.C. Verma (Ram Chandra Verma ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sada Phal Singh and Others Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others