Disposed

Satish Chandra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. City Development Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024/2625/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a mandamus to compel the opposite parties to decide his application for payment of one year's stipend at a specified rate in accordance with a Municipal Corporation Lucknow office memorandum. The court directed the opposite party to decide the representation within six weeks without entering into the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The opposite party no. 3 is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks from the date the certified copy of the order is placed before them.

Satish Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2625 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. City Development Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Nishad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Ratan

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶7

To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and decide the application dated 29-1-2024 to the petitioner with regard to pay stipend of one year from dated 25-8-2017 to 24-8-2018 at the rate of Rs 3542 per month in accordance with Municipal Corporation Lucknow office memorandum Number 369 dated 10-7-2017 The copy of application dated 29-1-2024 is being Annexed as Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition.

¶8

To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay stipend of one year from dated 25-8-2017 to 24-8-2018 at the rate of Rs 3542 per month in accordance with Municipal Corporation Lucknow office memorandum Number 369 dated 10-7-2017 The copy of application dated 29-1-2024 is being Annexed as Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition.

¶9

To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to comply the direction issued in Municipal Corporation Lucknow office memorandum Number 369 dated 10-7-2017 with regard to pay stipend of one year from dated 25-8-2017 to 24-8-2018 at the rate of Rs 3542 per month The copy of Municipal Corporation Lucknow office memorandum Number 369 dated 10-7-2017 is being Annexed as Annexure no. 4 to this writ petition.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner after argument on merits, has confined his arguments that in the interest of justice, the opposite parties may be directed to decide the representation, within a stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has no

¶12

objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶13

In view of the above innocuous prayer, without entering into the merits of the case, opposite party no. 3 is hereby directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, appended as annexure no. 1 along with the writ petition, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order passed is placed before him.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of , accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 Anurag, PS Gr-I

¶16

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

Satish Chandra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. City Development Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chandra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. City Development Deptt. Lko. and 7 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

Noorul Haq Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Neelam Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Dr. Umesh Dutt Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Edu. Research Lko and 3 Others

Aayushi Jain Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Higher Education, Ministry of Edu., New Delhi and Others

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Prajawal Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others