Disposed

Salil Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2024/3274/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought interest on delayed gratuity payment for his mother. Courts directed respondent to decide a fresh representation within six weeks without adjudicating merits of the underlying claim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation to respondent no. 3; respondent to decide within six weeks with reasoned order.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33039

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3274 of 2024 Petitioner :- Salil Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Shukla,Garima Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shailendra Singh Rajawat

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2 and Shri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 4.

¶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 respondents to pay the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity of petitioners mother.

¶9

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.3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Amethi 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.

¶10

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before respondent no.3 then respondent no.3 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 six weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of .

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 27.4.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶14

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

Salil Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salil Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education 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

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Cooperative, Lko. and Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Aother

Rabhuvir Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Ankit Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ( Revenue Deptt. ), Lucknow and Others

Mirtunjay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Shekhar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others