Disposed

Nikhil Kumar Das and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Infrastructure and Industrial Development Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024/3008/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Courts disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to consider fresh representations regarding service records within a stipulated period by mutual consent, without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners at liberty to submit fresh representation within 15 days; respondent directed to consider and decide within six weeks while summoning service records.

Nikhil Kumar Das and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30324

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3008 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nikhil Kumar Das And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Infrastructure And Industrial Development Commissioner Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Himanshu Hemant Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the basis of instructions received from his clients, submits that he is not pressing the Prayer Clause No. 1 of the writ petition.

¶7

Heard Sri Sachin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Uadi Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3.

¶8

Instant writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs :-

¶9

"i................

¶10

ii. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing and commanding the Respondent No. 2 to decide the representations of petitioner no. 1 dated 08/11/2023, petitioner no. 2 dated 07/11/2023 petitioner no. 3 dated 08/11/20-23 contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, in the interest of justice.

¶11

iii. Pass any other suitable order or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the instant case in favour of the petitioners."

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the interest of justice would be subserved if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 may be directed to consider and decide the same within stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this court.

¶13

Learned counsels appearing for the opposite

¶14

parties have no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶15

In view of the above and without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioners are at liberty to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 2 within a period of 15 days from today, and if such representation is moved, the opposite party no. 2 is hereby directed to consider and decide the same within further period of six weeks, while summoning the service records as well as other requisite records of the petitioners, from the authority concerned.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 AKS

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nikhil Kumar Das and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Infrastructure and Industrial Development Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Kumar Das and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Infrastructure and Industrial Development Commissioner Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M Mahasha Vishen Laghu Madhayamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. through Its Secy.Basic Edu. Up and Others

Nirupama Singh D/O Indra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Aayushi Jain Vs Directorate General U.P. Medical Education and Training Thru. Director General

Ram Nihor Shukla Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications and 2 Others

Rama Shanker Shukla Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications and 2 Others

Ram Kripal Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricul. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others