Disposed

Sri Prakash Narain Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2024/3890/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition seeking pension revision under the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. With the consent of parties, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before Respondent No. 3 Public Analyst, who was directed to decide it within a fixed timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit fresh representation before Respondent No. 3 Public Analyst within two weeks; Respondent directed to decide within six weeks.

Sri Prakash Narain Nigam Vs State of U.P… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38283

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3890 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sri Prakash Narain Nigam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food Safety And Drug Administration Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra,Sonam Kumari Thapa Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶6

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

¶7

3. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to revise the pension of the petitioner pursuant to the implementation of the recommendation of 7th pay commission as per the Government Order dated 18.07.2017 and thereafter pay arrears of the same after the revision has been effected.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.3 Public Analyst to Government of U.P., which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned counsels for respondents have no objection.

¶9

5. 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 within a further period of six weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶10

6. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.5.2024/prateek

¶13

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Prakash Narain Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prakash Narain Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Verma Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Anot

Virendra Pratap Shukla Home Guard Resident NO.0234 Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Sec. Home Guards Lko. and Ors.

Sikandar Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Maheshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Rural Development Lucknow andORS.

Dr. Jagpal Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Rahul Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Lko. and Others