Disposed

Atul Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024/239/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition without merits, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2023 regarding his minimum pay scale within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2023 within two months.

What the court decided

Atul Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3558

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 239 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondents to give minimum pay scale of class IV post on which the petitioner has been appointed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2014 as daily wager in Horticulture Department and since then he has continuously been functioning on the said post.

¶9

It is further submitted that the persons junior to the petitioner are getting minimum pay scale but the same was not given to the petitioner for which the petitioner has made representation on 22.09.2023 to the respondent no. 4 i.e. Superintendent Rajkiya Udayan, Ayodhya.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the seniority list enclosed by the petitioner in which the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 102, there is a mention that at present the petitioner is not working.

¶11

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that the representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2023 may be considered by respondent no. 4 within a stipulated time frame, as this Court may deem fit and proper.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

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. 4 i.e. Superintendent Rajkiya Udayan, Ayodhya to take a decision on the representation of the

¶14

petitioner dated 22.09.2023 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production/receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 Nitesh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Atul Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Atul Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture Civil Secrt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil Kumar Singh Pno. No. 132280253 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sandeep Krishna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Gunjan Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Information and Pu

Dinesh Kumar Balmiki and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Baliram Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Gautam Adhikari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Women and Welfare Deptt. Lko. and Another