Disposed

Parashuram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024/2027/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged salary withholding order for lack of hearing. Petitioner withdrawn salary claim for September 2023. Court disposed of petition directing respondent to decide pending representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondent no. 3 to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23254

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2027 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Parashuram

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Rural Development Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Shakeel Qureshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 29.04.2023 passed by respondent no. 5 i.e. Assistant Development OfÏcer (Panchayat) Block- Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, whereby the salary of the petitioner for the month of April, 2023 has been withheld; and with a further prayer to direct the respondent no. 3, District Panchayat Raj OfÏcer, District Bahraich, to release the salary for the month of April and September, 2023, in favour of the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after filing of the present writ petition, the order for nonpayment of the salary for the month of September, 2023 has been withdrawn and cancelled by order dated 05.03.2024 indicating that it had wrongly been passed and the salary of the petitioner has wrongly been withheld.

¶10

It is further submitted that the petitioner does not want to press the relief for payment of salary for the month of September, 2023.

¶11

It is further submitted that the order dated 29.04.2023 has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶12

It is further submitted that in the attendance Register, the presence of the petitioner is noted and certificate is given by the Gram Pradhan regarding the fact that the petitioner was working.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner had not worked in the month of April, 2023 as the petitioner had not forwarded the Geotag photo to ascertain that he was doing his job on the post of Sweeper in the Primary School where he was posted while submitting his reply against the show cause notice. There is no illegality in the order passed.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that a direction may be issued to respondent no. 3 to take a decision on representation of the petitioner dated 16.06.2023 within a stipulated time frame, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶15

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2023, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.3.2024 DiVYa

¶17

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Parashuram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parashuram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 5 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Keshav Puri Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and Another

Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Lalit Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Menaka Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others