Disposed

Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rajya Sampatti Vibhag (Estate Deptt. ) Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2024/2859/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dispensing from deciding the merits of a writ petition for promotion and pension. The court directed the respondent to decide a fresh representation submitted by the petitioner within three months of submission.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide a fresh representation within three months of its submission.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28775

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2859 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rajya Sampatti Vibhag (Estate Deptt. ) Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for following main reliefs:

¶8

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to promote the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.02.2021 on the basis of recommendation of Departmental Selection Committee.

¶9

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to fix and grant the payscale of 4200/- in pursuant to Second A.C.P. dated 16.03.2021 as fixed and granted to the other similarly situated persons.

¶10

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to fix the pension of the petitioner based on the payscale of grade pay Rs.4200/as similarly situated persons received.

¶11

(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release the arrear of the pension and other consequential benefits that arose due to non-promotion w.e.f. 01.02.2021 in the interest of justice."

¶12

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 i.e. Rajya Sampatti Adhikari (Estate Officer), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection.

¶13

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 in accordance with law and the relevant rules within a further period of three months from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of .

¶15

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioner.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.4.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rajya Sampatti Vibhag (Estate Deptt. ) Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rajya Sampatti Vibhag (Estate Deptt. ) Lko. and 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

Ram Sumer Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Health and Medical Lko. and Ors.

Ratneshwar Kumar Chaturvedi and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Health and Medical Lucknow and Ors.

Smt. Ranjana Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Child Development U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ayush Dwivedi Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defense Govt.of India New Delhi and Others

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Kamlesh Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others