Virendra Misra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Avam Pustahar Lko. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54577

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5784 of 2024

Petitioner :- Virendra Misra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Avam Pustahar Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari,Aman Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

This Court has passed the order dated 26.7.2024 which reads as under:

¶8

"1. Heard Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶9

2. By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 1.9.2023 passed by the District Program Officer, Fatehpur who has stopped the payment of leave and did not sanction that leave without seeking approval from opposite party no. 2 i.e. Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar, U.P., Lucknow who is the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, therefore, Sri Tiwari has stated that the impugned order has been passed by the incompetent authority, therefore, on account of aforesaid apparent error on the face of the order that order may not sustain.

¶10

3. Sri Vikas Singh, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days time to seek specific written instructions in the matter and if possible he may file short counter affidavit in the meantime.

¶11

4. List on 8.8.2024 as fresh.

¶12

5. This matter shall be taken up immediately after fresh cases."

¶13

Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel has stated that he has received complete instructions in the matter and as per the aforesaid instructions, no order has been passed by the District Programme Offcer, Fatehpur causing monetary loss to the petitioner and since the application of the petitioner for leave was not put up appropriately, therefore, it was not forwarded before the competent authority.

¶14

Shri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has,

¶15

however, stated that since the aforesaid application was not forwarded before the competent authority, therefore, the petitioner suffered loss of the earned leave. At this stage, he has made an innocuous prayer that the petitioner may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar, U.P., Lucknow placing his grievance making request that his grievance may be redressed.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid innocuous request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, without entering into merits of the issue and without interfering the impugned order dated 1.9.2023 (annexure-1), the liberty is given to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party no. 2 i.e., Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar, U.P., Lucknow taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him enclosing therewith copies of relevant documents which are necessary for disposal of the representation, within a period of 10 days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within aforesaid period, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same strictly, by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if it is so required, with expedition preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 Shravan

¶19

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶20

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

Virendra Misra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Avam Pustahar Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Misra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Avam Pustahar Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Radha and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Labour Lko. and Another

Kamal Khursheed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. and 2 Others

Kaushal Kishore Trivedi Vs State O. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Munaa Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Ranjana Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Head Constable (Civil Police) Suresh Kannaujiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others