Disposed

Sh. Surendra Kumar Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secrtt. Admisitration Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024/3014/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought mandamus directing the State of U.P. to decide on the petitioners' claim for notional promotion to the post of Review Officer, alleging delay after juniors were promoted. The court considered that the matter was under administrative consideration and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to competent authority to consider petitioner's claim for promotion to Review Officer within three months.

Sh. Surendra Kumar Pandey and Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30382

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3014 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sh. Surendra Kumar Pandey And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secrtt. Admisitration Deptt. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpila Bisht,Garima Dixit,Rahul Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sandip Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to take a decision pertaining to notional promotion of the petitioners on the post of Review Officer (Accounts) from the date their juniors have promoted.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after a challenge that was made to final seniority list of Assistant Review Officer this Court vide judgement and order dated 27.09.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions leading being Writ A No. 2986 of 2010 in re: Ali Safdar Anhsari and others vs State of U.P. and others, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the petition, has upheld the seniority list dated 23.04.2010 for the post of Assistant Review Officer and had required the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list for the higher post of Review Officers and thereafter to consider promotion to vacant post of Review Officer.

¶10

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that subsequent thereto the respondents have prepared the final seniority list yet various juniors of the petitioners have been

¶11

promoted. Upon the petitioners raising the grievance the respondents vide the order dated 22.03.2024, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioners at serial no. 13 of the said order have indicated that their claim for notional promotion with effect from the date of promotion of juniors is under consideration yet the petitioners have still not been promoted.

¶12

On the other hand, Shri Sandip Sharma, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions sent by the Joint Secretary, State Government dated 16.04.2024 states that the process for consideration of claim of petitioners for notional promotion is under process and requisition has been sent to all the offices concerned and after receipt of consent of all the departments the matter would be sent to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for its approval.

¶13

Accordingly, considering that the matter of petitioners for notional promotion to the post of Review Officer is under consideration with the respondents as such the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to take consideration of petitioners claim for promotion for the post of Review Officer to its logical end within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order provided there is no legal impediment.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶15

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

Sh. Surendra Kumar Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secrtt. Admisitration Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Surendra Kumar Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secrtt. Admisitration Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Usha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health, Lucknow and 3 Others

Heera Lal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Chityanand Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Ayush U.P. Lko. and Others

Sh. Surendra Kumar Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secrtt. Admisitration Deptt. Lko.

Hemant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Forest. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another