Disposed

Manish Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 May 2024/3562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment as the adopted son of a deceased Class IV employee. The court, with consent of counsel, dismissed the claim to decide merits but directed the District Magistrate to decide a fresh representation within a fixed timeline.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Magistrate to decide fresh representation on compassionate appointment within eight weeks.

Manish Kumar Kashyap Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35737

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3562 of 2024 Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Kashyap Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay 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 contending that the petitioner is the adopted son of late Ram Kumar and late Meera Devi who was working on a Class IV post under the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinga, Srivastava and died in harness on 08.02.2022. The petitioner claims that on account of he being the adopted son, he should be given compassionate appointment.

¶8

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. District Magistrate, Shravasti 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.

¶9

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 8 weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶10

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of .

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 9.5.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶13

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

Manish Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 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

Rajesh Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest and Van U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Kamal Joshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Taruna Saxena vs Union of India Thru. It Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications, and 2 Others

Sukh Das and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Mohini Sindhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Avam Pushtahar Vibhag U.P. Lko. and 6 Others